The Three Largest Threats to Gun Rights

[Sin-ster]

You presume too much, im well aware of his name, as well as his position, as an le, chp instructor, and general good guy. I mispell his name as i always have and figure he is used to it by now. He is the only LE that i know who can shoot strait beyond 50 feet,lol. Anything I say here that is anti-chp has zero reflection on Nolacop at all and he is well aware of it. I think he is a goood guy and enjoy razzing him as much as possible.

as for calling me unedumacated, well that is probably true, then again if you are part of the educated crowd, who wants in that club?

My statistics are factual, you can argue them and bitch and **** and moan all you wish, the facts just wont change because you want them to.

I am not going to appologise for my opinion, nor for my contributions to these threads simply because you disagree. If you are looking for that type of communism try china just get in your hybrid yuppie car and drive till you are wet and swim for a few weeks, when you get to the red nation, pick up a flag with your brethren and stand at post. Here we just say we disagree, call someone a jackstick, then share our thoughts on the subject, we call that freedom.

btw Brandy, while ur over there in the sand cya and come back here so I can resume my MEMbership,lol.

Ahh, I get it. The Brandon was a joke-- actually pretty funny.

That being my only presumption-- pot, kettle, black?

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with the data presented, only questioning it's merit in the most flagrant way possible, to match the way in which it was presented in your post. It's fine to say it's factual-- but where did it come from? The same Wikipedia page that's mentioned in the article? Honestly, I'd be interested in reading it all.

Personally, I disagree with the a lot from the original articles that Nola posted-- and not just the gun stuff. I do, however, understand what he's talking about when vocal folks spout extreme opinions, defend them blindly to the death, and present them in the least persuasive, most abrasive (and at times, nearly illegible) way possible.

I respect everyone's right to an opinion, despite how damaging it might be. In fact, I did "call [you] a jackstick, then share(d) [my] thoughts on the subject"-- apparently, too subtly for your liking? But since we're not a communist nation, as you so aptly presume I desire, I thought that was acceptable-- and we call it freedom?

Who wants to be educated, indeed. Information is highly overrated anyway. You end up wasting your breath a lot, reminding yourself it's not worth it, and wondering why you even bother. You could spend your time doing something equally easy and fruitless, like out shooting a blind person, defeating a canine at chess, or playing tackle football with four year olds.

Sadly, once the damage of reading, understanding and applying has been done... there's just no going back! Although I suppose you could drink or drug your way out of rational thinking... I do have a lot of booze around, and it IS Labor Day-- I might give this one a shot, see how the other side lives for a few hours.

 

[Plinky]

Ahh, I get it. The Brandon was a joke-- actually pretty funny.

That being my only presumption-- pot, kettle, black?

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with the data presented, only questioning it's merit in the most flagrant way possible, to match the way in which it was presented in your post. It's fine to say it's factual-- but where did it come from? The same Wikipedia page that's mentioned in the article? Honestly, I'd be interested in reading it all.

Personally, I disagree with the a lot from the original articles that Nola posted-- and not just the gun stuff. I do, however, understand what he's talking about when vocal folks spout extreme opinions, defend them blindly to the death, and present them in the least persuasive, most abrasive (and at times, nearly illegible) way possible.

I respect everyone's right to an opinion, despite how damaging it might be. In fact, I did "call [you] a jackstick, then share(d) [my] thoughts on the subject"-- apparently, too subtly for your liking? But since we're not a communist nation, as you so aptly presume I desire, I thought that was acceptable-- and we call it freedom?

Who wants to be educated, indeed. Information is highly overrated anyway. You end up wasting your breath a lot, reminding yourself it's not worth it, and wondering why you even bother. You could spend your time doing something equally easy and fruitless, like out shooting a blind person, defeating a canine at chess, or playing tackle football with four year olds.

Sadly, once the damage of reading, understanding and applying has been done... there's just no going back! Although I suppose you could drink or drug your way out of rational thinking... I do have a lot of booze around, and it IS Labor Day-- I might give this one a shot, see how the other side lives for a few hours.

Touche'

 

[BenCarp27]

Overall, I think it was a pretty humourous article. I think the author had solid basis for his opinions, and some pretty good points; especially when it came to uneducated, improperly trained "gun nuts", "mall ninjas", etc.
He did lose me a bit on some/most of his concealed carry arguements, though.
Personally, I don't give a s**t whether a jury of my peers think the guy I shot was going to actually shoot/stab me. If he pulls a knife/gun, I have to assume he has an intent to harm me or my family. Bottom line, for that very tense 30 or 40 seconds of confrontation, my sole objective in life is eliminate the threat he poses. If I'm armed, that makes the elimination process that much quicker.
I'll be the first to say, "avoidance" is the best policy. Avoid dangerous areas, avoid shady characters, park in well lit areas, and shop in fairly safe and regularly patrolled areas. But, if it does happen, I'm not playing would he/wouldn't he.

 

[posse comatosis]

Who gave permission to use my photo?

 

[JR1572]

Who gave permission to use my photo?

He has an eyepatch! He must be a pirate!

JR1572

 

[sraacke]

I'm confused by the bloggers arguement. He says, OC is legal and then he goes and derides those who do it. It's like saying, Writing letters to the editor of your local newspaper is legal but if you do then the right to send letters to editors will be put in jeopardy. Sorry but I don't buy into that mentallity.

 

[Sin-ster]

I'm confused by the bloggers arguement. He says, OC is legal and then he goes and derides those who do it. It's like saying, Writing letters to the editor of your local newspaper is legal but if you do then the right to send letters to editors will be put in jeopardy. Sorry but I don't buy into that mentallity.

I think it's more along the lines of...

"If you write inflammatory, ill-informed, down right stupid letters to the editor, the chance that even the good letters will be read and considered goes down."

In some ways, he makes a good point or two. For the most part, as you've noted, it comes off as contradictory and down right elitist at times. He could actually take some of his own advice, as the most important aspect of writing a persuasive argument is making sure not to alienate your audience, who presumably disagree with you from the start. And I don't know many people who respond well to "you're fat, you're not at enough risk to carry a gun, you're stupid, so stop OCing and making people like ME look bad".

Although, to be fair, the author seems to be appealing to an audience like himself, with similar views, and hopes that they will take up the cause themselves. Of course, he doesn't provide much of a framework for them to be successful in this endeavor. All in all, pretty darn silly.