Pro-Trump group sent armed members door-to-door in Colorado to “intimidate” voters: Lawsuit

[Comshaw]

Okay, tough guys, settle down. I don't think any of you actually has the balls to do what you're talking about, but go ahead and puff yourself up for the internet.

Aw my child, please believe what ever you wish to believe, 'tis your right. But don't let that belief get in the way of reality.

Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

Okay, tough guys, settle down. I don't think any of you actually has the balls to do what you're talking about, but go ahead and puff yourself up for the internet.

I especially like the part where his "defenders" said he never threatened to shoot anyone and then go on to say that they themselves would point their shotgun at whoever is on their front porch.

Meanwhile back in reality, the law is quite clear that pointing a gun at someone IS threatening to shoot them. However, merely having a weapon in a holster, even if it's visible, IS NOT a threat.

And some of these FUCKING IDIOTS say they have concealed firearms permits...

 

[Comshaw]

I especially like the part where his "defenders" said he never threatened to shoot anyone and then go on to say that they themselves would point their shotgun at whoever is on their front porch.

Meanwhile back in reality, the law is quite clear that pointing a gun at someone IS threatening to shoot them. However, merely having a weapon in a holster, even if it's visible, IS NOT a threat.

And some of these FUCKING IDIOTS say they have concealed firearms permits...

If you are referencing my post, please be so kind as to quote where I said I would point my shotgun at those on my porch. Since it's right up there on this thread, that should be exceedingly easy for you. Go on show where I said it...if you can. Mean while, this...

Aw my child, please believe what ever you wish to believe, 'tis your right. But don't let that belief get in the way of reality.

Comshaw

Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

If you are referencing my post, please be so kind as to quote where I said I would point my shotgun at those on my porch. Since it's right up there on this thread, that should be exceedingly easy for you. Go on show where I said it...if you can. Mean while, this...


Comshaw

You're such a lying fucking asshole you don't even know what's been said.

In post #63 HE SAID:

I would face absolutely ZERO prosecution for shooting someone on my property

He reiterated that sentiment in post #71.

Then of course in post #72 YOU said:

I can tell you that I am with RMM, someone comes to my door visibly armed and I don't know them, they will be met with an autoloading 12 ga. full of 00 buck

And now you're saying RMM didn't say he'd shoot anyone, even though I posted his words exactly, and you never said you'd "point" your shotgun at someone, even though you DID say they'd be "met with an autoloading 12 ga." as if "being met with" a shotgun is not pointing it at anyone.

You must have some serious mental deficiencies if you think those things weren't said and don't mean what the words are intended to mean on their face.

 

[Comshaw]

You're such a lying fucking asshole you don't even know what's been said.

In post #63 HE SAID:


He reiterated that sentiment in post #71.

Then of course in post #72 YOU said:


And now you're saying RMM didn't say he'd shoot anyone, even though I posted his words exactly, and you never said you'd "point" your shotgun at someone, even though you DID say they'd be "met with an autoloading 12 ga." as if "being met with" a shotgun is not pointing it at anyone.

You must have some serious mental deficiencies if you think those things weren't said and don't mean what the words are intended to mean on their face.

I'm sorry if you are so ignorant of the English language you can't understand what was said. He never said he WOULD shoot someone; he did say he would face ZERO PROSECUTION FOR DOING SO. If you refuse to see the difference in those two statements, then it is beyond my capability to explain it in a manner where you will understand.

As far as my statement, "...they will be met with an autoloading 12 ga. full of 00 buck." again, either ignorance of the English language or intentionally misinterpreting a statement to make it say what you want it to. I said EXACTLY what I wanted to say and imply. It wasn't an ambiguous double entendre statement. Your intentional MISINTERPRETATION of my words was that I would have it pointed at them, which wasn't said or implied.

Your last statement explains it: "...those things weren't said and don't mean what the words are intended to mean on their face."

So in essence, you will not take the things I said at face value, nor ask for a clarification, but are telling me what I intended to say? You can read minds? Of course you can! Allow me to quote to you part of my statement to LD, "...please believe what ever you wish to believe, 'tis your right. But don't let that belief get in the way of reality."

The problem here is when reality shows what is and a person still insists that what they believe is true, is true, that belief spins off into the realm of
fantasy. It appears I am not the one with the mental deficiency.

TA

Comshaw

 

[pecksniff]

The important question here is why we are even debating this. That is, how did we get to a point where the events described in the OP could happen at all?!

Does anyone have any idea how?!

 

[Rockymtnman]

So according to my buddy. I’m legally allowed to shoot people on my property if they are perceived as an immediate threat to me, my family or my property. Period. And I quote, “ if there are people you don’t know, walking up to your door with weapons, it is reasonable to assume they mean you harm and therefore reasonable to react in self Defense. Private property is just that. Private. Their right to carry a gun ends the second they step foot on your property. Shoot away.” End quote.

By the way I shot 42/44 for an 86. Not great but only my second time out since October. Left a handful of 2-3 footers out there. also, stupid ass weatherman lied. Said it was going to get to 80 today. Barely broke 60.

 

[Chobham]

So according to my buddy. I’m legally allowed to shoot people on my property if they are perceived as an immediate threat to me, my family or my property. Period. And I quote, “ if there are people you don’t know, walking up to your door with weapons, it is reasonable to assume they mean you harm and therefore reasonable to react in self Defense. Private property is just that. Private. Their right to carry a gun ends the second they step foot on your property. Shoot away.” End quote.

By the way I shot 42/44 for an 86. Not great but only my second time out since October. Left a handful of 2-3 footers out there. also, stupid ass weatherman lied. Said it was going to get to 80 today. Barely broke 60.

You're buddy's going to get you sent to prison.

 

[HisArpy]

You're buddy's going to get you sent to prison.

It's ok, he and Comshit can share a cell.

 

[HisArpy]

I'm sorry if you are so ignorant of the English language you can't understand what was said. He never said he WOULD shoot someone; he did say he would face ZERO PROSECUTION FOR DOING SO. If you refuse to see the difference in those two statements, then it is beyond my capability to explain it in a manner where you will understand.

As far as my statement, "...they will be met with an autoloading 12 ga. full of 00 buck." again, either ignorance of the English language or intentionally misinterpreting a statement to make it say what you want it to. I said EXACTLY what I wanted to say and imply. It wasn't an ambiguous double entendre statement. Your intentional MISINTERPRETATION of my words was that I would have it pointed at them, which wasn't said or implied.

Your last statement explains it: "...those things weren't said and don't mean what the words are intended to mean on their face."

So in essence, you will not take the things I said at face value, nor ask for a clarification, but are telling me what I intended to say? You can read minds? Of course you can! Allow me to quote to you part of my statement to LD, "...please believe what ever you wish to believe, 'tis your right. But don't let that belief get in the way of reality."

The problem here is when reality shows what is and a person still insists that what they believe is true, is true, that belief spins off into the realm of
fantasy. It appears I am not the one with the mental deficiency.

TA

Comshaw

tl;dr

don't really care what you think either.

 

[pecksniff]

The important question here is why we are even debating this. That is, how did we get to a point where the events described in the OP could happen at all?!

Does anybody have any idea how?!

 

[Rockymtnman]

You're buddy's going to get you sent to prison.

maybe but I’ll take my chances with the law over assuming incorrectly

 

[Gorgoroth]

Colorado is an open-carry state. Just sayin'.

Civil rights terrify the fucking shit out of these control freaks though.

Just because it's not a crime does not mean it is not intimidation.

It's not intimidation unless there is some kind of threat made.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Does anybody have any idea how?!

Yes.... it's called freedom.

I understand you hate that.

But this is the USA comrade..

 

[oggbashan]

Civil rights terrify the fucking shit out of these control freaks though.



It's not intimidation unless there is some kind of threat made.

It is intimidation if the court says so. Until the court case is decided, everything else is just hot air.

 

[phrodeau]

Does anybody have any idea how?!

It is odd, because the leader of the intimidation group has said publicly, “I think if you’re involved in election fraud, then you deserve to hang.” They should have had rope instead of guns.

 

[coati]

Civil rights terrify the fucking shit out of these control freaks though.

Hey, quit picking on the Deplorables. They can't help it that they're terrified of black and trans people. The only reason they pass laws about what cannot be mentioned in schools is their abject terror.

Rather than slamming them for being control freaks, think about donating to a fund that will establish safe spaces for ALL Deplorables. They are very sensitive about people who are different from them.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Hey, quit picking on the Deplorables.

I'm not, learn to read.

They can't help it that they're terrified of black and trans people.

Totally off topic, and they aren't.

The only reason they pass laws about what cannot be mentioned in schools is their abject terror.

Yes, given what you and your fellow MAP's are wanting to do with their children behind their\ backs, rightfully so.

And the only reason an anti-grooming bill has you and the comrades upset is because you're a bunch of creepy MAP's.

Rather than slamming them for being control freaks, think about donating to a fund that will establish safe spaces for ALL Deplorables. They are very sensitive about people who are different from them.

Kids need to be protected, that's not control freakism....that's common fucking sense for us parents who are concerned with their wellbeing. Now if Florida parents catch you fucking weirdos trying to transition their 6 year old behind their back they can totally fucking destroy you in court..... no wonder it's got you so upset. Oh well you'll just have to keep your predatory activities in blue shit holes like California where they support that kind of thing.

People who want to groom small children aren't "different" they're fucking sick and should be stoned to death or drawn and quartered publicly.

 

[coati]

People who want to groom small children aren't "different" they're fucking sick and should be stoned to death or drawn and quartered publicly.

^^^And once again, for the umpteenth time, this poster advocates for violence against those who hold a different view than him (educators and pediatricians in this case). You would think this poster would eventually learn that his version of violent Sharia Law is not consistent with civil discourse in this country, and certainly not consistent with Lit's guidelines.

Wonder why he keeps getting bounced off this forum? Wonder no more...

 

[Gorgoroth]

^^^And once again, for the umpteenth time, this poster advocates for violence against those who hold a different view than him (educators and pediatricians in this case). You would think this poster would eventually learn that his version of violent Sharia Law is not consistent with civil discourse in this country, and certainly not consistent with Lit's guidelines.

Wonder why he keeps getting bounced off this forum? Wonder no more...

Dude... sharia law is pro-child abuse, it's on YOUR side.

And yes, I 100% support violence against anyone engaging in predatory activities against children.

Grooming young children isn't a "different view" ya fuckin' psycho.... but I know why you and your fellow MAP's are trying to pass it off as such, that's why there is such a big push to see MAP's as just another orientation!!!

Absolute fucking sickos..... I hope the FBI is watching you and all the other child abuse advocates.

 

[coati]

None of us can prevent the total loss of civil discourse when certain posters immediately resort to promoting violence as a response to issues related to mental health and civil rights.

I think it is a good sign that forums like this occasionally purge violent posters from the site. I think it is a good sign that the leadership of extremist groups are actively being investigated at the federal level.

 

[Gorgoroth]

None of us can prevent the total loss of civil discourse when certain posters immediately resort to promoting violence as a response to issues related to mental health and civil rights.

People engaging in predatory actions against small children deserve neither discourse nor civility.

I'm sure you and the other pro-grooming MAP's disagree.

I think it is a good sign that forums like this occasionally purge violent posters from the site. I think it is a good sign that the leadership of extremist groups are actively being investigated at the federal level.

It's a good sign to defend MAP's abuse of children??

You and the other MAP fans here supporting the abuse of children are the ones who need to be investigated CHESTER.

 

[Rightguide]

Says the white guy whose side the gun-toting thugs are on.
It's not your place to decide whether other people felt intimidated, anyway.

Who said it was, dipshit?

 

[phrodeau]

None of us can prevent the total loss of civil discourse when certain posters immediately resort to promoting violence as a response to issues related to mental health and civil rights.

I think it is a good sign that forums like this occasionally purge violent posters from the site. I think it is a good sign that the leadership of extremist groups are actively being investigated at the federal level.

Yep, used to be a poster called BotanyBoy here, who admitted that he was a borderline sociopath, and went ballistic when people suggested that he seek medical help.

 

[Gorgoroth]

It is intimidation if the court says so. Until the court case is decided, everything else is just hot air.

No, the court is just mob rule popularity statements too.

Words mean things, activist in robes don't have the authority to change that.