S.308 (restaurant carry) debate from 4/17/13 - Page 23
Page 23 of 60 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 596

Thread: S.308 (restaurant carry) debate from 4/17/13

  1. #221
    Would be at all inappropriate to send John Scott a letter stating my opinion of his ramblings today? I'm not at all in his district but I feel compelled to share a few things with him, all without being threatening or rude or using foul language. Just curious if people do that kind of thing and what response they would get.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by Gadgetech View Post
    Would be at all inappropriate to send John Scott a letter stating my opinion of his ramblings today? I'm not at all in his district but I feel compelled to share a few things with him, all without being threatening or rude or using foul language. Just curious if people do that kind of thing and what response they would get.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    I plan on doing that very thing when I get a little free time this weekend. Normally they just don't respond, as I've sent a few. Or you can tell they just didn't read it because it is their prewritten "thanks for expressing your concerns" letter. And I don't think it should matter if you're in his district or not. He's influencing the passage of law that effects people in all districts. You have every right to tell him what a piece of sh!t he is.

  4. #223
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The first state to secede!!!!
    Posts
    325
    The big question is.....how well can John Scott read, as he butchers the Queen's English about as bad as any public figure I've ever heard.

  5. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by Gadgetech View Post
    Would be at all inappropriate to send John Scott a letter stating my opinion of his ramblings today? I'm not at all in his district but I feel compelled to share a few things with him, all without being threatening or rude or using foul language. Just curious if people do that kind of thing and what response they would get.
    I'm not going to tell you what to do, but I will give you my opinion.

    I write lots of letters on many topics aside from guns, although email is now the preferred method of communication. Sometimes they are to my district people, sometimes not. In general, I wouldn't expect to get a response if you aren't in his disctrict, but you may. On this topic, I wouldn't expect him to respond nor would I care what he had to say.

    Again, this is simply my opinion. He wasn't trying to make sense, or to speak to a broad audience. He was pandering to his base, those on his side of the isle, and wasting time. It's pretty common, and why you don't get over a difficult hurdle once, then voluntarily go back around to try to get tripped up again.

    Standing in the well, speaking like a baptist preacher and referring to gun owners as cowboys and criminals certainly wasn't intended to bring anyone closer to his opinion.

    He doesn't like guns (admitted it) doesn't particularly like gun owners (it's obvious), and clearly doesn't understand the concerns of good, honest people who carry a gun for the protection of their family while in public places like Lowes, Target, the mall, and yes, Applebees (or your eatery of choice). He obviously doesn't need gun owners to get elected and thinks I'm as big a clown as I think he is. He will not change his mind.

    For me, time is much better spent writing to those that are on the fence and might be convinced by your argument. If I were inclined to write a letter to anyone, I'd write a letter to the editor of his local newspaper and counter his commentary. Using his own*words makes him sound dumb. I see no reason why his constituents shouldn't be able to read his dumb comments. They might be persuaded.

    My regret this year is that I didn't record these sessions. I don't think they are available from any archives, but I'm going to make some inquiries. His presentation from the well yesterday would make a great youtube montage, and would be my dumb anti-gun quote for June.

  6. #225
    Ethical? Senator John Scott --> John Scott: Senator For Hire? - FITSNews

  7. Quote Originally Posted by John Canuck View Post
    I'm not going to tell you what to do, but I will give you my opinion.

    I write lots of letters on many topics aside from guns, although email is now the preferred method of communication. Sometimes they are to my district people, sometimes not. In general, I wouldn't expect to get a response if you aren't in his disctrict, but you may. On this topic, I wouldn't expect him to respond nor would I care what he had to say.

    Again, this is simply my opinion. He wasn't trying to make sense, or to speak to a broad audience. He was pandering to his base, those on his side of the isle, and wasting time. It's pretty common, and why you don't get over a difficult hurdle once, then voluntarily go back around to try to get tripped up again.

    Standing in the well, speaking like a baptist preacher and referring to gun owners as cowboys and criminals certainly wasn't intended to bring anyone closer to his opinion.

    He doesn't like guns (admitted it) doesn't particularly like gun owners (it's obvious), and clearly doesn't understand the concerns of good, honest people who carry a gun for the protection of their family while in public places like Lowes, Target, the mall, and yes, Applebees (or your eatery of choice). He obviously doesn't need gun owners to get elected and thinks I'm as big a clown as I think he is. He will not change his mind.

    For me, time is much better spent writing to those that are on the fence and might be convinced by your argument. If I were inclined to write a letter to anyone, I'd write a letter to the editor of his local newspaper and counter his commentary. Using his own*words makes him sound dumb. I see no reason why his constituents shouldn't be able to read his dumb comments. They might be persuaded.

    My regret this year is that I didn't record these sessions. I don't think they are available from any archives, but I'm going to make some inquiries. His presentation from the well yesterday would make a great youtube montage, and would be my dumb anti-gun quote for June.
    What I found crazy was that he blatantly said he was against firearm ownership period, and he'd ban them all if he could. Ladies and gentlemen, we've found SC's Feinstein.

    I just wanna write to him and show him how minuscule firearm deaths are when compared to many other non-controversial things, you know, since he seemed to be so obsessed with throwing statistics at us yesterday. And on that note, he talked about all the people that had their CWP revoked and the reasons why, yet he clearly didn't understand that a gun wasn't necessarily a part of the crime they committed. Like if someone has their permit revoked for assault or domestic vigilance or even murder, that doesn't mean they used a gun in that crime. It just means they committed the crime and upon conviction had to surrender their CWP. I'm not saying a gun wasn't necessarily used, all I'm saying us that a statistic is worthless when you try and draw conclusions from it that are entirely based on assumption.

    I gotta tell ya though, I really enjoyed hearing from Bryant. I wrote him on Facebook and let him know that after listening to his comments and seeing how level headed he was about these types of issues, as long as he was running for public office he'd have my support. It was especially fun watching him speak his mind to Sen. Martin. I liked when he said "To be honest Senator, I'm not comfortable with the people's 2nd amendment rights ending at midnight."

  8. #227
    Sen. Scott's actions yesterday were nothing more than stalling tactics. Remember he is the one who put in an amendment to require silver bullets for carry in a restaurant when the Senate spent two days listening to his BS before. The bill is not dead as the session carries over to January. If the House version could have been voted on it would have passed so the intent was to keep it from either being voetd on or going to committee. If it had gone to committee they could have stripped everything out of it and there was still a slight chance of it not passing both houses.

    It the Senate can resume debate on the bill in January and hear Sen. Scott out they can finally vote either on the House version or a modified version. We will just have to wait until next year to find out but S-308 is not dead.

  9. #228
    It shouldn't come as a surprise that any politician openly comes out for or against a particular topic. IMHO about a third of the population is anti-gun. They come mostly from either extreme in the authoritarion curve. Some of them get elected, some of them enable the election.

    It's going to be difficult to change that within a community. In the case of Jake Knotts, removal was the only option. He was the chairman of the Judiciary Committe and covertly block pro-gun legislation enabled by the NRA who said to me "he works well with us". Since virtually no pro-gun legislation (at least none that impacts a gun owner in his day to day life *) was passed under his watch, it makes me wonder what they were working on. It doesn't help that SC is notorioulsy inefficient at passing legislation, but that's another story.

    Some politicians are against school choice, ethics reform, debt reduction, or whatever. They don't really try to hide it. Where we waste a bunch of our time is in trying to get them replaced with people who agree with whatever we want them to agree with. They are in the business of buying votes. I don't care what their opinion is. Milton Freedman said a better approach was to "get the wrong people to do the right things."

    IMHO, we would be further ahead to identify the anti-gunners that hide behind the likes of Jake Knotts and John Scott. They are obviously worried about how many votes they lose if is know they are anti-gun. Is there any gun lobby in SC that keeps track, scores and publishes this information? I know there is at least one that is good at asking for donations in every email.

    IMHO, You will never turn the openly anti-gun folks into pro-gun advocates who will vote for pro-gun legislation. You might however, convince enough of his constituents to be vocal enough that he sees the value in staying out of the way. You might convince enough of them to vote him out, but it's doubtful, and frankly too slow.

    Anyway, I've been waiting at work for some information allowing me to freeform rant my thoughts on the interwebz. Info has just now arrived. Efficiency in the workplace is a wonderful thing.

    Does anyone know what the newspaper is down in Ridgeland County?

  10. #229
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The first state to secede!!!!
    Posts
    325
    We don't have a Ridgeland County

  11. I got a personal email from John Martin last night. He said he was not at all happy (nor were many others in the Senate) about Scott and a few others pulling the hi-jinx yesterday. As he said, these Senators were rehashing something that they'd already spent days on....the Bill had already been thru the debate.

    He says the Bill will be back on the table in January, and that he has enough support to keep it going.

    I guess my question now is why didn't Martin or someone else challenge Scott when he was up their throwing out untruths? that's what's got me confused.

Page 23 of 60 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... 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