TexasCHLforum.com

Someone else bumped the thread and I happened to see your absurd comments and responded. Then you responded with more absurdity.

EEllis wrote:

lildave40 wrote:

AndyC wrote:You fellows are aware that some antis scout our forum looking for stuff like this, right? ;)

Yea I learned that the hard way. Wont happen again for sure.

I don't believe he was speaking to your comments but rather the ones who were talking about not mentioning a unenforceable sign and that you shouldn't ever mention it to the management. That attitude has been used as propaganda by anti's before. By the way those opinions are not universal to everyone. There are legitimate reasons to mention or question unenforceable signs. It is just that the "don't mention it" crowd is a bit more militant about it which makes it seem more wide held than it actually is.

Yeeeeeah, we're the militants alright. All 90%+ of us.

Taypo wrote:

EEllis wrote:

lildave40 wrote:

AndyC wrote:You fellows are aware that some antis scout our forum looking for stuff like this, right? ;)

Yea I learned that the hard way. Wont happen again for sure.

I don't believe he was speaking to your comments but rather the ones who were talking about not mentioning a unenforceable sign and that you shouldn't ever mention it to the management. That attitude has been used as propaganda by anti's before. By the way those opinions are not universal to everyone. There are legitimate reasons to mention or question unenforceable signs. It is just that the "don't mention it" crowd is a bit more militant about it which makes it seem more wide held than it actually is.

Yeeeeeah, we're the militants alright. All 90%+ of us.

No not something I said. I said that the ones who are militant make it seem like it's a wider held belief. Heck I would bet a majority don't carry everyday.There are certainly not 800,000 active members on this site but there are certainly over 100 so most people don't care enought to bother with the poll.To most people it's not a big concern. And most people tend to avoid dealing with thread where people get all worked up.So yes the ones who make a big stink are the one that I called militant about the issue.

mojo84 wrote:Someone else bumped the thread and I happened to see your absurd comments and responded. Then you responded with more absurdity.

Come on guy now you skip over actually saying anything related to the topic to just trash me? Look if I feel it's warranted I will speak to someone about an unenforceable sign. That is not, and should not, be some off limits subject. I wouldn't go looking for bad signs so I can help fix them either. You do you, I do me. Why people think this needs to be made into some campaign is beyond me. The main thing you guys have probably done is made sure anyone else who disagrees is less likely to mention it because of how worked some are getting. Congradulations?

EEllis wrote: Heck you woke up a dead thread just to, I don't know, correct me?

He didn't wake up a dead thread, someone had just posted 13 minutes before he did.

EEllis wrote:Come on guy now you skip over actually saying anything related to the topic to just trash me?

Your comment calling most the "dont mention it crowd" militant was offensive. Passionate would of not sounded so harsh. The "dont mention it crowd" I have seen posting here are not militant, the just can not comprehend why someone who is carrying a firearm to defend themselves and their families would want to limit the amount of places where not only they can carry but where all chlers can carry. It does not make sense.

If the business owners want to deny their employees and customers the right to defend themselves while in their businesses, they should at least do their own research and get it done themselves. Why help bad guys by informing business owners to put up signs that will keep armed good guys out. Ask that does is put people in danger. To anyone who does not believe that, watch these videos and ask yourself what would happen if these places were made gun free by signs like the 30.06 signs.

https://youtu.be/y66ZVKgWso4
https://youtu.be/W9eCrs_MXxo
https://youtu.be/l-JmmkxolkA

Javier730 wrote: Your comment calling most the "dont mention it crowd" militant was offensive. Passionate would of not sounded so harsh. The "dont mention it crowd" I have seen posting here are not militant, the just can not comprehend why someone who is carrying a firearm to defend themselves and their families would want to limit the amount of places where not only they can carry but where all chlers can carry. It does not make sense. "

I said militant, not about everyone just that a segment was, because that is how it appears to me. I really didn't even think about it and I wasn't trying to insult or upset anyone that was just the descriptive word that popped into my head. But I tell you what, the "passionate" response, insults, derogatory comments, etc, don't do much about changing my mind about the word militant. And where did I say I wanted to limit places I could carry? Never that's where. You start with a false premise. What I have said is I can see several reasons where I might mention a unenforceable sign. Big difference. Take the op. Does it appear he what trying to help the manager post the store? No he was asking because he wanted to know the reason and purpose for the non compliant sign. I think the "passionate" response was over the top and felt like, if not bullying, at least improper peer pressure.

If the business owners want to deny their employees and customers the right to defend themselves while in their businesses, they should at least do their own research and get it done themselves. Why help bad guys by informing business owners to put up signs that will keep armed good guys out. Ask that does is put people in danger.

Don't go to that store. What store is going to post that will leave you without any other options? I can't think of a single on that is likely to happen. You make your decisions and I will continue to make mine for myself.

My last two words on this topic in this thread---------

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

EEllis wrote:And where did I say I wanted to limit places I could carry? Never that's where. You start with a false premise.

I never mentioned you saying you wanted to limit places you could carry. I said your comment was offensive and gave my opinion of a better word besides militant. Then I spoke about how I saw the "militants" could not comprehend why someone would want to limit places they can carry.

Javier730 wrote:Your comment calling most the "dont mention it crowd" militant was offensive. Passionate would of not sounded so harsh. The "dont mention it crowd" I have seen posting here are not militant, the just can not comprehend why someone who is carrying a firearm to defend themselves and their families would want to limit the amount of places where not only they can carry but where all chlers can carry. It does not make sense. "

I never mentioned you or the op. Read the "militants" comments on this and other threads similar to this one and you will see what im saying.

EEllis wrote:I think the "passionate" response was over the top and felt like, if not bullying, at least improper peer pressure.

You think me saying passionate is instead of militant for the"dont mention it crowd is bullying?

mojo84 wrote:I happened to see your absurd comments and responded

This.

You describe a certain group of people here as militant and my comment saying passionate is a better word to describe these people is over the top?

Javier730 wrote:

EEllis wrote:And where did I say I wanted to limit places I could carry? Never that's where. You start with a false premise.

I never mentioned you saying you wanted to limit places you could carry. I said your comment was offensive and gave my opinion of a better word besides militant. Then I spoke about how I saw the "militants" could not comprehend why someone would want to limit places they can carry.

Javier730 wrote:Your comment calling most the "dont mention it crowd" militant was offensive. Passionate would of not sounded so harsh. The "dont mention it crowd" I have seen posting here are not militant, the just can not comprehend why someone who is carrying a firearm to defend themselves and their families would want to limit the amount of places where not only they can carry but where all chlers can carry. It does not make sense. "

I never mentioned you or the op. Read the "militants" comments on this and other threads similar to this one and you will see what im saying.

EEllis wrote:I think the "passionate" response was over the top and felt like, if not bullying, at least improper peer pressure.

You think me saying passionate is instead of militant for the"dont mention it crowd is bullying?

mojo84 wrote:I happened to see your absurd comments and responded

This.

Look if you just want me to reference only your post when your post mentions other is a bit much. Sure you didn't "say" it you just refered to why others were concerned but then come back about me speaking to that? That's just unreasonable. Maybe you're a little to "passionate". As far as suggesting a different term being bullying I think it's clear I was speaking towards more than that. This kind of twisting and less that accurate conversation is what I mean. The only thing I can think is some are so "passionate" that they lose a bit of composure, or they don't want a competing voice a would focus on diminishing that by insult and innuendo (like I want people to be less safe) instead of having valid conversations. You want to make a point I will reply but have no interest in conversations that are just about calling comments absurd.

EEllis wrote:You want to make a point I will reply but have no interest in conversations that are just about calling comments absurd.

I looked on the threads on this forum looking for the "dont mention crowd it"acting militant, I see none. Did you mean anyone on this forum? If so please quote them so we can all see what you mean. Here are links to two other threads with some people you referred to as the "dont mention it crowd". Show us the militants. Show us how calling your comment about the militant behavior was not absurd by providing quotes that came off as militant.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=79138

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=79108

Javier730 wrote:

EEllis wrote:You want to make a point I will reply but have no interest in conversations that are just about calling comments absurd.

I looked on the threads on this forum looking for the "dont mention crowd it"acting militant, I see none. Did you mean anyone on this forum? If so please quote them so we can all see what you mean. Here are links to two other threads with some people you referred to as the "dont mention it crowd". Show us the militants. Show us how calling your comment about the militant behavior was not absurd by providing quotes that came off as militant.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=79138

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=79108

No. I have spent too much time on this already and will not continue to do so on proving why a term I used is valid or not to other people. It matters not to the topic of the thread, to the discussion on when or if to mention unenforceable signs, or even if pressure is being applied to try and prevent others from mentioning non compliant signs.

Good Lord, why does this continue to happen?

(I'm about to break one of my cardinal rules here, and I'm sure I'll regret it - as some of you may recall, in this post, I said "there are some members on this forum with whom I'll never engage on any topic here, because, as the old saying goes, "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll just get dirty, and the pig will just have fun". Well, I'm about to do just that. But I'm not going to argue the point, of informing vs. not informing - I'm just going to highlight the point about the arguing.)

There are now THREE ACTIVE THREADS which contain people arguing about this topic, and for those of us who have been here for several years, we know it's not the first time.

• The first of these is forgivable... it had not been discussed in a long time, and someone was frustrated that he'd seen something, so he made a comment about it. Well, a few folks supported his position, and then a new member understandably questioned the reasoning, and it's safe to assume he did not know the history of how many times this question has been asked, answered, and argued about on this forum. Some of our same old instigators showed up and turned it into an argument, and we (the folks who have been here for a while) allowed it to devolve even further.
• The second one was a poll question posted in response to the first argument (likely an attempt to diffuse the discussion and find out what the pulse of the community was without all the banter. The OP on that thread asked specifically NOT to engage in argument, rather just state why you responded as you did to the poll. Yet again, it reduced to a bunch of ad hominum attacks about "property rights vs. CHL rights", which was NOT what the poll was about.
• And now we're here again here on this thread. And again, we have the same EXTREMELY VOCAL character(s) who push and shove, and argue ad infinitum about absolutely everything. We have the same folks mincing words, poking at the littlest things, and making a huge deal out of it.

Shame on them for starting it up again, and shame on the rest of us for letting it happen - again. It's like responding to a troll who first comes on a message board - except that you don't often find out it's a troll until after the hook gets sunk in. But if we know the argument is going to ensue, because the same people argue about absolutely everything, then why engage?

Charles, Is there a way in the new software to select persons to block from view? I have about 2-3 folks that I'd like to NEVER read anything they write, ever again. I'm just tired of the incessant argument and the passive aggressive posturing.

(I'd rather try to have a logical discussion with a rabid gun-hater than I would engage on this forum at times.)

.45 cal 1911 is the only good self defense firearm, 9mm stinks, and Kalashnakov was a genius and Eugene Stoner wasn't ....

nyaaa...nyaaa...nyaaa...nyaaa...nyaaa...nyaaa...nyaaa...

ScottDLS wrote:.45 cal 1911 is the only good self defense firearm, 9mm stinks, and Kalashnakov was a genius and Eugene Stoner wasn't ....

nyaaa...nyaaa...nyaaa...nyaaa...nyaaa...nyaaa...nyaaa...