USMC91E6
Regular Member
imported post
USMC91E6 wrote:
USMC91E6 wrote:
VA born and bread. Stationed at Camp Lejeune.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
THIS is my last post
- Thread starter wilkie
- Start date
imported post
USMC91E6 wrote:
Indeed, unseen friends are still friendlies and unseen enemies are the worst kind.
To those that fit either category, you will be known by your words and deeds. Hoorah!
Yata hey
USMC91E6 wrote:
Thank you for your service and welcome to OCDO!
Indeed, unseen friends are still friendlies and unseen enemies are the worst kind.
To those that fit either category, you will be known by your words and deeds. Hoorah!
Yata hey
imported post
I understand and as a matter of fact, expressed my concerns to other members that we were driving people away.
Leo 229 has a lot to offer and doesn't start sounding like a nut until he's pushed beyond any reasonable limit
I said once that if GUN OWNERS as a group could get along, we could rule the General Assembly.....but unfortunately, we can't. None of us are that flexible!
I understand and as a matter of fact, expressed my concerns to other members that we were driving people away.
Leo 229 has a lot to offer and doesn't start sounding like a nut until he's pushed beyond any reasonable limit
I said once that if GUN OWNERS as a group could get along, we could rule the General Assembly.....but unfortunately, we can't. None of us are that flexible!
sjhipple
Regular Member
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
What do you use for 'principle'? I use, "that which will not be compromised." That said, one must carefully differentiate between 'principle' and 'precept.'
It's kind'a like 'spine', what do you use for spine? Remember the terms 'ramrod' and '2x4'? Not very flexible are they but we honor those with spine - like the USMC. Hoo rah!
Compromise is failure on the installment plan.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
What do you use for 'principle'? I use, "that which will not be compromised." That said, one must carefully differentiate between 'principle' and 'precept.'
It's kind'a like 'spine', what do you use for spine? Remember the terms 'ramrod' and '2x4'? Not very flexible are they but we honor those with spine - like the USMC. Hoo rah!
Compromise is failure on the installment plan.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
imported post
peter nap wrote:
Yata hey
peter nap wrote:
Oh yes we are! At least most of us are so capable. We just need a lot more practice. Each and every step must be deliberate and controlled as we can make it on this journey. We have made great strides forward and I expect even more from this band of brothers (and sisters)!I understand and as a matter of fact, expressed my concerns to other members that we were driving people away.
Leo 229 has a lot to offer and doesn't start sounding like a nut until he's pushed beyond any reasonable limit
I said once that if GUN OWNERS as a group could get along, we could rule the General Assembly.....but unfortunately, we can't. None of us are that flexible!
Yata hey
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
peter nap wrote:
I'm not sure I personallyexpect gun owners to get along. It would be a little like expecting lots of agreement from car owners, or people who own a dog, etc.
Its just not a point of social commonality.It would bea little like expecting a stranger in public to agree with me just because we were both wearing shirts instead of togas. Fat chance.
During the western expansion in the 1800's, numerous people in that part of the country had guns. Yet, they aligned themselveson political issues based on factors other than firearms ownership."Yeah, he's got a gun like me. I've got boots, like him. So, I'm supposed to agree with thim?"
Wasn't it Jefferson who said he'd prefer the rough and tumble of liberty over the peace and quiet of tyranny?
peter nap wrote:
I'm not sure I personallyexpect gun owners to get along. It would be a little like expecting lots of agreement from car owners, or people who own a dog, etc.
Its just not a point of social commonality.It would bea little like expecting a stranger in public to agree with me just because we were both wearing shirts instead of togas. Fat chance.
During the western expansion in the 1800's, numerous people in that part of the country had guns. Yet, they aligned themselveson political issues based on factors other than firearms ownership."Yeah, he's got a gun like me. I've got boots, like him. So, I'm supposed to agree with thim?"
Wasn't it Jefferson who said he'd prefer the rough and tumble of liberty over the peace and quiet of tyranny?
openryan
State Researcher
imported post
peter nap wrote:
Obviously the large majority of us here are in agreement and proponents of gun rights on a lower level, which is why we are here. Once you get into the higher level arguments of the whole thing, this is where the differences will come out.
peter nap wrote:
+1!
Obviously the large majority of us here are in agreement and proponents of gun rights on a lower level, which is why we are here. Once you get into the higher level arguments of the whole thing, this is where the differences will come out.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
peter nap wrote:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, very much.
That's me. The epitome of insight, wisdom, and grace. For some reason all my friends fall down suffocating with laughter when I add humbleness to the list.
With all that said,however, just because forum members don't treat one another with dignity and respect doesn't mean they can't. Which is where Wilkie's complaint and your wish come into the picture.
We just have to find and convey the point about respect to which any given flamer/argue-er will agree. Sometimes they'll quiet down if somebody points out that Brady et al must be laughing themselves blue over the arguing. Sometimes somebody will feel sheepish about flaming if you point out how many viewers there arecompared to the posters. Its just a matter of appealing to conscience and gentle persuasion.
I'm one of this forum's original posterboys for over-the-top flaming. If I can tone it down and keep it very civil, I know others can.
peter nap wrote:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, very much.
That's me. The epitome of insight, wisdom, and grace. For some reason all my friends fall down suffocating with laughter when I add humbleness to the list.
With all that said,however, just because forum members don't treat one another with dignity and respect doesn't mean they can't. Which is where Wilkie's complaint and your wish come into the picture.
We just have to find and convey the point about respect to which any given flamer/argue-er will agree. Sometimes they'll quiet down if somebody points out that Brady et al must be laughing themselves blue over the arguing. Sometimes somebody will feel sheepish about flaming if you point out how many viewers there arecompared to the posters. Its just a matter of appealing to conscience and gentle persuasion.
I'm one of this forum's original posterboys for over-the-top flaming. If I can tone it down and keep it very civil, I know others can.
imported post
peter nap wrote:
During WWII many people, wearing different uniforms, speaking different languages, with very different backgrounds and lifestyles (even within their own groups) banded together in a common cause......and prevailed. Do not suggest that because someone is older or younger, blue or white collar, male or female that we cannot or would not recognize "the common good."
"So, I'm supposed to agree with thim(sic)?" No that’s not a requirement but I would very much hope that like minded people could bury their differences and fight for the common cause.
Jefferson never said, "Stand alone and die alone. Stand together and live forever." but that makes as much sense to me.
Yata hey
peter nap wrote:
It is actually very easy to disagree with that statement - to find common ground on which to agree and bond into a cohesive, powerful and functional unit.
During WWII many people, wearing different uniforms, speaking different languages, with very different backgrounds and lifestyles (even within their own groups) banded together in a common cause......and prevailed. Do not suggest that because someone is older or younger, blue or white collar, male or female that we cannot or would not recognize "the common good."
"So, I'm supposed to agree with thim(sic)?" No that’s not a requirement but I would very much hope that like minded people could bury their differences and fight for the common cause.
Jefferson never said, "Stand alone and die alone. Stand together and live forever." but that makes as much sense to me.
Yata hey
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
My point was that expecting agreement simply because they share a trait--they ownguns--presumes a common interestthat doesn't necessarily translate into unity. With guns, about the onlyagreement I would expect to just automatically exist is that guns exist, they have a use, they're a pain to clean, and that it might be fun or a good idea to have one. Beyond that, I think it gets iffy real quick, and
You have to start building agreements from there. As you say, find common ground on which to agree. And then build on it.
We're both talking about the same thing. I wasexamining one step earlier in the sequence to help readers recognize that ownership doesn't automatically translate intocommon political agreement. Just that step. I've detected a frustration on the board that gun owners disagree too much. Sure they do. What would be surprising is if they didn't. THAT would be the real surprise.Don't be frustrated by it. Its natural.
We just have to work to use what common ground does exist to persuade other gun owners into political unity and political action. But we do have to work at it. It won't just happen.
To tie into the thread topic, in the meantime we canavoid undermining what rapport and appreciation we have for each other, andnot scare off new recruits,by being civil to each other.
Grapeshot wrote:
I'm not sure we'd be disagreeing about the same thing.
My point was that expecting agreement simply because they share a trait--they ownguns--presumes a common interestthat doesn't necessarily translate into unity. With guns, about the onlyagreement I would expect to just automatically exist is that guns exist, they have a use, they're a pain to clean, and that it might be fun or a good idea to have one. Beyond that, I think it gets iffy real quick, and
You have to start building agreements from there. As you say, find common ground on which to agree. And then build on it.
We're both talking about the same thing. I wasexamining one step earlier in the sequence to help readers recognize that ownership doesn't automatically translate intocommon political agreement. Just that step. I've detected a frustration on the board that gun owners disagree too much. Sure they do. What would be surprising is if they didn't. THAT would be the real surprise.Don't be frustrated by it. Its natural.
We just have to work to use what common ground does exist to persuade other gun owners into political unity and political action. But we do have to work at it. It won't just happen.
To tie into the thread topic, in the meantime we canavoid undermining what rapport and appreciation we have for each other, andnot scare off new recruits,by being civil to each other.
imported post
Citizen wrote:
I comend you for your spirit and dedication. And you are quite right, we are in agreement. I appreciate your thoughts.
Yata hey
Citizen wrote:
In fact, we are in considerable accord for the most part.
My point here is that unity needs to/should exist simply because "they own guns" or believe that guns are our right. We have all seen reference to parables beginning with "first they came for....and I did nothing etc....and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me." The result could be the same here as it is now in England if we do not unite. Hunters that don't CC or OC cannot, dare not ignore the attack. Recreational/target shooters that don't hunt cannot be complacent. Neither can we treat these groups as so different from ourselves.
Well put.
I think that the frustration stems from the rudeness, personal attacks and pointless tirades. We are for the most part adults and need to remain civil towards each other.
I Agree 100% - that is the main point I intended to make.
+2 , Diane agrees also
I comend you for your spirit and dedication. And you are quite right, we are in agreement. I appreciate your thoughts.
Yata hey
Marco
Regular Member
imported post
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
Agent19 wrote:
Ahh, no big deal. Apology accepted.
Carry on.
Agent19 wrote:
:XI have been guilty of a few un called for comments and have since apologized for them.
If I missed anyone (except **********& #*#@!) consider this my apology.
IMHO
I don't see a problem with a healthy debate but the name calling has to stop, we don't have to agree but we shouldn't attack each other.
There are afew I know I will never get along with soI just ignore them NOW, whichI should have been doing all along
Ahh, no big deal. Apology accepted.
Carry on.
Marco
Regular Member
imported post
.
I have to make it to a Richmond OC dinner.
I couldn't swing the sweater vest thing
.I have to make it to a Richmond OC dinner.
VAopencarry
Regular Member
imported post
USMC91E6 wrote:
"Wilkie' the OP, is whining and leaving because of the bickering. Is that having anybody's back? I submit, no.
In the Corps and all the military, we argue and bicker but we do not run off whining. We always have our brother's back, don't we?
He is not someone I would ever want covering me. and most importantly..................
THIS IS THE INTERNET!!!
USMC91E6 wrote:
Staff Sgt(?), Let me respectfully submit the following:
"Wilkie' the OP, is whining and leaving because of the bickering. Is that having anybody's back? I submit, no.
In the Corps and all the military, we argue and bicker but we do not run off whining. We always have our brother's back, don't we?
He is not someone I would ever want covering me. and most importantly..................
THIS IS THE INTERNET!!!
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
hlh wrote:
hlh wrote:
This cycle could be short-cut real quick if we set and impose some standards.