Anti Gunner Wears Glock For Thirty Days

[walt629]

Anti's are idiots. :wink:

I'll buy that! :crazy_pilot:

 

[S&W645]

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?

 

[Seeya]

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."

 

[AndeyHall]

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.

 

[tricolordad]

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.

 

[ezkl2230]

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.

 

[BC1]

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.

 

[BC1]

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."

 

[tricolordad]

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!!

 

[AndeyHall]

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).

 

[ezkl2230]

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.

 

[Cowbilly32]

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!

 

[ezkl2230]

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.

 

[BC1]

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.

 

[gejoslin]

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.

 

[BluesStringer]

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!

 

[AndeyHall]

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.

 

[ezkl2230]

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.

 

[AndeyHall]

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.

 

[gejoslin]

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.