Anti Gunner Wears Glock For Thirty Days - Page 9
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 104

Thread: Anti Gunner Wears Glock For Thirty Days

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigcarlover View Post
    Anti's are idiots.
    I'll buy that!
    To not stand against injustice is to stand for it.
    Don't confuse my personality and my attitude.
    My personality is who I am, my attitude depends on who you are.

  2.   
  3. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Quote Originally Posted by walt629 View Post
    Hmm... All of my response posts are "pending moderation". Is that anything waiting to be deleted?
    Most likely. Antis can't stand facts and not feel good feelings. You don't see anything from the gov't talking about the CDC's report do you?
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  4. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by mmn View Post

    To the topic, what I was trying to say was:

    1. While it is the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms (and I support that), I would like to see some tightening in laws regarding training for concealed carry, particularly in states such as hers which seem to have none.

    2. Though it's not part of her agenda, I think the article points out just how easy it is, in some states, to legally carry a lethal weapon with no training in public. I think that's not a good thing.

    While you can disagree with a post, calling it drivel is a judgment that I do find offensive.

    So there!

    Michael
    Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.
    "Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence
    of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his
    conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects
    himself."
    The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday

  5. Quote Originally Posted by mmn View Post
    Don't quite get where I said or implied I don't believe in the 2nd amendment, or why you thought that I thought calling my post "drivel" was a compliment. That word is actually quite offensive (if you look it up).

    There have been I think three posts regarding my original post. They all indicate some level of misunderstanding, but to go into it would sort of derail the original topic.

    To the topic, what I was trying to say was:

    1. While it is the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms (and I support that), I would like to see some tightening in laws regarding training for concealed carry, particularly in states such as hers which seem to have none.

    2. Though it's not part of her agenda, I think the article points out just how easy it is, in some states, to legally carry a lethal weapon with no training in public. I think that's not a good thing.

    While you can disagree with a post, calling it drivel is a judgment that I do find offensive.

    So there!

    Michael
    If you would like to see tightening of gun laws to require training for concealed carry, then no, you do not support the 2nd amendment. Please inform us where in the 2nd amendment it mentions anything about receiving permission from your state to be able to take advantage of that right. Please inform us where it mentions ANYTHING about permits, schools, felons, or anything or anyone else that we have tried to govern out of the right to carry a gun. What if a single mother who works 2-3 jobs just to get by wants to be able to carry a gun for her own protection, but time or money are not luxuries she has that would both be required to take your stupid training courses. She would not be able to carry and therefore be denied her right to keep and bear arms.

    It is this type of "common sense" gun control (banning guns on schools, or from convicted felons, or requiring permits) that we fall hook-line-and-sinker for, and then the next thing we know, we've allowed our government to chip away at the 2nd amendment so much that we're having to fight for EVERYONE'S right to keep and bear arms. You cannot take the 2nd amendment and pick and choose what type of legislation should be tacked on to it and then not expect our government to go completely out of control with it and overstep their bounds. That is inevitable.

  6. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    I'm getting impatient. The Huffington Post supposedly picked this up, so I wanna see it. I can't wait to read about how she sits around with an empty gun fantasizing about shooting children at Starbucks. It's like getting a sneak peek into the mind of a mental patient. :-)

  7. #86
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by mmn View Post
    1. While it is the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms (and I support that), I would like to see some tightening in laws regarding training for concealed carry, particularly in states such as hers which seem to have none.
    I would like you to do us all a favor and explain what it is about concealed carry that necessitates more extensive training and legal oversight than open carry. In Michigan, one can openly carry without a permit of any kind (caveat - as long as they aren't openly carrying in a legally-defined gun free zone, in which case, the carrier must posses a CPL), yet the ONLY difference between OC/CC is the method of carry - period. Both involve carrying dangerous weapons. Both carriers should know how to safely use those weapons, yet so many seem to think that concealed carry - which by definition means that the firearm is inherently MORE DIFFICULT to deploy in the first place - requires a higher level of competency. The stricture against concealed carry goes back to the archaic notions that A) the one who chooses to carry concealed must have less than honorable motives for doing so (a gentleman wears his firearm openly), and B) that there really is such a thing as a fair fight (this is the logic employed by legislators when they passed the first Michigan gun control laws in the 1920's - concealed carry gave one an unfair advantage in a fight).

    Defend your position, which, on a purely logical level, and even more importantly, on a Constitutional level, is indefensible.

  8. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
    Most likely. Antis can't stand facts and not feel good feelings. You don't see anything from the gov't talking about the CDC's report do you?
    Kids need to be taught to be very wary of anything they're told or that they read. There is an agenda in everything today. The truth is inconvenient for Ms. Magazine's agenda. Never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  9. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by tricolordad View Post
    I'm getting impatient. The Huffington Post supposedly picked this up, so I wanna see it. I can't wait to read about how she sits around with an empty gun fantasizing about shooting children at Starbucks. It's like getting a sneak peek into the mind of a mental patient. :-)
    I got banned for posting a response to a HP article that ended with "paid for by the committee to deport Arianna Huffington."
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  10. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    I got banned for posting a response to a HP article that ended with "paid for by the committee to deport Arianna Huffington."
    Lol rock star!!

  11. Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    I would like you to do us all a favor and explain what it is about concealed carry that necessitates more extensive training and legal oversight than open carry. In Michigan, one can openly carry without a permit of any kind (caveat - as long as they aren't openly carrying in a legally-defined gun free zone, in which case, the carrier must posses a CPL), yet the ONLY difference between OC/CC is the method of carry - period. Both involve carrying dangerous weapons. Both carriers should know how to safely use those weapons, yet so many seem to think that concealed carry - which by definition means that the firearm is inherently MORE DIFFICULT to deploy in the first place - requires a higher level of competency. The stricture against concealed carry goes back to the archaic notions that A) the one who chooses to carry concealed must have less than honorable motives for doing so (a gentleman wears his firearm openly), and B) that there really is such a thing as a fair fight (this is the logic employed by legislators when they passed the first Michigan gun control laws in the 1920's - concealed carry gave one an unfair advantage in a fight).

    Defend your position, which, on a purely logical level, and even more importantly, on a Constitutional level, is indefensible.
    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).

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 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