Anti Gunner Wears Glock For Thirty Days - Page 10
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 104

Thread: Anti Gunner Wears Glock For Thirty Days

  1. #91
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    While I agree with everything that you said 100%, I would just like to offer some advice that has been my general tactic for arguing for more lenient gun legislation. I never compare the legislation being argues with another similar yet more lenient piece of legislation. For example, say you were to stand before your state gov't and make the argument you just did to someone who was making the same claim that the guy you were arguing just did. If their belief that is that CC requires more stringent training, and you proceed to point out that OC requires no carry and that it is no different than CC other than the method of carrying, then rather than siding with your beliefs, you may have just pointed out to them that the OC laws need changing too. That is why I never argue gun legislation with other gun legislation (with the exception to the 2nd amendment, because it should be the 1 and only law of the land concerning guns).
    I'm not arguing this before the court or legislature; when I present arguments to legislators, I do so on the strength of objective data that definitively demonstrate my pro-Second Amendment stance. I am asking someone on THIS FORUM who claims to be supporter of the Second Amendment to defend a position that is fundamentally indefensible.

    I am an advocate for Second Amendment rights here in Michigan. I was on staff with the representative from Michigan's 77th House district and both researched and wrote legislation for him, some of which was on the verge of being passed at the end of the last session when Gov. Snyder showed us his true anti-Second Amendment colors. I advised the representative with whom I was working against the amendments to that legislation desired by the governor, as they would have had the effect of LESSENING, not increasing, carry, would have effectively done away with open carry altogether, and would have given gunbuster signs the force of law. I am seriously considering making a run for the Michigan state house myself at some point in the not-too-distant future as a pro-Second Amendment Constitutional carry, pro-life, pro-legal immigration, pro-smaller government, pro-Tenth Amendment candidate.

  2.   
  3. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The Great Republic of Texas!
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by mmn View Post
    I think her article serves a valid purpose - exposing how easy it is for any idiot in her state to get a gun and a concealed carry permit with no requirement other than a background check. And I'm positive there's many more like her that do it, carry it, don't get any training, and don't write about it. I for one wouldn't assume most people who buy guns and carry them concealed are at all responsible, intelligent, moral or possess any of the other qualities we like to think they have.

    Here in Florida all I had to do for a concealed carry permit was show I had some accepted training. In my case that was a DD214 showing an honorable discharge some 40+ years ago.


    Regards
    Michael
    More people are killed in automobile accidents than by guns and I don't see where people are clamoring that dealerships require proof that the purchaser knows how to drive. It is kind of understood that if you buy a car you either know how to drive or will learn before using it. Of course you could buy it as a gift for someone else!
    "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society" - Theodore Roosevelt

  4. #93
    ezkl2230 Guest
    I just posted the following on HuffPo:

    She failed to follow through with this series on the Ms Magazine web site; if she actually followed through with her plan to carry for 30 days, then she should be done with her month of carry by now, yet there has only been one installment of her harrowing quest. I don't expect to see any more installments, and I would be shocked to find out that she actually carried for the entire 30 days. In fact, I speculate that she discovered a few things that didn't comport with her pre-conceived notions - she may have actually found herself enjoying the experience! I suggest she contact US Supreme Court Justice Kagan to find out how much she has come to enjoy shooting and even hunting!

    Awaiting moderation.

  5. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowbilly32 View Post
    More people are killed in automobile accidents than by guns and I don't see where people are clamoring that dealerships require proof that the purchaser knows how to drive. It is kind of understood that if you buy a car you either know how to drive or will learn before using it. Of course you could buy it as a gift for someone else!
    And some 95,000+ people are killed every year by a licensed health-care professional and we haven't outlawed doctors yet.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  6. #95
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by mmn View Post
    I think her article serves a valid purpose - exposing how easy it is for any idiot in her state to get a gun and a concealed carry permit with no requirement other than a background check. And I'm positive there's many more like her that do it, carry it, don't get any training, and don't write about it. I for one wouldn't assume most people who buy guns and carry them concealed are at all responsible, intelligent, moral or possess any of the other qualities we like to think they have.

    Here in Florida all I had to do for a concealed carry permit was show I had some accepted training. In my case that was a DD214 showing an honorable discharge some 40+ years ago.

    Regards
    Michael
    Excuse me, but have you read the 2nd Amendment? Nowhere in the 2A does it say anything about training. Now, I think they should but it's not required by the amendment. In Constitutional Carry states all you have to do is buy one and strap it on.
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  7. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,418
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    And some 95,000+ people are killed every year by a licensed health-care professional and we haven't outlawed doctors yet.
    Oh man, don't get me started about doctors......Some of them are worse than cops at wanting to run your life!
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  8. Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    I'm not arguing this before the court or legislature; when I present arguments to legislators, I do so on the strength of objective data that definitively demonstrate my pro-Second Amendment stance. I am asking someone on THIS FORUM who claims to be supporter of the Second Amendment to defend a position that is fundamentally indefensible.

    I am an advocate for Second Amendment rights here in Michigan. I was on staff with the representative from Michigan's 77th House district and both researched and wrote legislation for him, some of which was on the verge of being passed at the end of the last session when Gov. Snyder showed us his true anti-Second Amendment colors. I advised the representative with whom I was working against the amendments to that legislation desired by the governor, as they would have had the effect of LESSENING, not increasing, carry, would have effectively done away with open carry altogether, and would have given gunbuster signs the force of law. I am seriously considering making a run for the Michigan state house myself at some point in the not-too-distant future as a pro-Second Amendment Constitutional carry, pro-life, pro-legal immigration, pro-smaller government, pro-Tenth Amendment candidate.
    Don't forget pro-14th amendment! I'm glad to hear someone not all up in a hissy about immigration! If people want to fuss about illegal immigrants who want to come here in search of a better future but can't afford to do it the legal way, they should probably find out where exactly their ancestors are from in Europe and go back, and while they're at it, consult a Native American and ask them whose country this is exactly.

  9. #98
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Don't forget pro-14th amendment! I'm glad to hear someone not all up in a hissy about immigration! If people want to fuss about illegal immigrants... consult a Native American and ask them whose country this is exactly.
    To which Native Americans do you refer? The ones who were here before the Inuit and others came across the Bering Land Bridge, who were either driven out of their home ranges, destroyed completely, or assimilated into the groups now considered to be "Native American?" DNA testing definitively proves that most who are considered "Native American" are, in fact, descendants of Asiatic tribes who migrated east to North America. So how far back do you want us to go? Face it, even most of them were migrants. The difference is that, as history progressed, government was established, armies were stood up, and the ability to define and defend one's borders became an accepted political reality going back thousands of years. Like it or not, the argument you use doesn't hold up. And you will notice that I said I am pro-legal immigration. By definition, that means that I am anti-illegal migration. And BTW, my wife is Native American.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    To which Native Americans do you refer? The ones who were here before the Inuit and others came across the Bering Land Bridge, who were either driven out of their home ranges, destroyed completely, or assimilated into the groups now considered to be "Native American?" DNA testing definitively proves that most who are considered "Native American" are, in fact, descendants of Asiatic tribes who migrated east to North America. So how far back do you want us to go? Face it, even most of them were migrants. The difference is that, as history progressed, government was established, armies were stood up, and the ability to define and defend one's borders became an accepted political reality going back thousands of years. Like it or not, the argument you use doesn't hold up. And you will notice that I said I am pro-legal immigration. By definition, that means that I am anti-illegal migration. And BTW, my wife is Native American.
    I think the argument holds up just fine. My point was, there were people who lived here long before we ever did, then we come over power-hungry looking for more land to conquer. We round them up and place them all in these nice little reservation while taking the rest of their land, then we get to sit back and criticize anyone else who tries to do the same because this is "our country", when most of the people who make that argument haven't ever done a single thing in service to their country or ever been willing to work near as hard as the so called "illegal" immigrant. But I think ex post facto laws would be about the only think keeping us from being considered "illegal" immigrants along with everyone else. The only reason we don't consider ourselves such is because conveniently enough we're making the rules.

  11. #100
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    I think the argument holds up just fine. My point was, there were people who lived here long before we ever did, then we come over power-hungry looking for more land to conquer. We round them up and place them all in these nice little reservation while taking the rest of their land, then we get to sit back and criticize anyone else who tries to do the same because this is "our country", when most of the people who make that argument haven't ever done a single thing in service to their country or ever been willing to work near as hard as the so called "illegal" immigrant. But I think ex post facto laws would be about the only think keeping us from being considered "illegal" immigrants along with everyone else. The only reason we don't consider ourselves such is because conveniently enough we're making the rules.
    Hey Andey,
    You remember there were many who came here for religious reasons and England was dumping criminals also. Many came as indentured servants and slaves. Then there's the penniless who sold everything they had to escape political and religious persecution. Power hungry? Sure there were many but on the whole most were looking for a better way of life.
    Where the Native American Indians screwed? Yeah they were. I'm part Cherokee myself and proud of it.
    My ancestors came over in the 1680's and they were told of the beautiful empty land free for the taking. all they had to do was homestead and make a new life. Yeah, I'd have done it too.
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast