• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

When Fudds and Non-Fudds Collide

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
If it looks like a duck sounds like a duck smells like a duck... by jove I say it is a duck! The same goes for fudds! I am tired of all this PC BS about how we cannot label people when we are only stating the obvious.

Sent from my Droid Flipside using Tapatalk
 

Rich B

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
2,909
Location
North Branford, Connecticut, USA
I truly love all the people who are calling OCers 'cowboys' and such and in the next breath saying that if they saw another person who was armed they would be putting their hand on their gun or 'going single action'.

We are our own worst enemies sometimes.
 

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
If it looks like a duck sounds like a duck smells like a duck... by jove I say it is a duck! The same goes for fudds! I am tired of all this PC BS about how we cannot label people when we are only stating the obvious.

Thats what I'm saying, but hey don't PO the FUDDS!

[video=youtube;KwPRRSiUWzQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwPRRSiUWzQ[/video]
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
JamesIan said:
I say that I want NO laws about carry.

JamesIan said:
A person who owns only a shotgun has alternatives other than going to a library armed with it and going around unarmed. Buying a handgun comes to mind.

While it is nice you want no laws pertaining to carry, you do not fully grasp the concept of freedom.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
You'll have to walk me through this. How is it I don't understand freedom?

Sure.

You claim on one hand "no laws about carry", while on the other hand "this person should buy a handgun". If you truly understood freedom, then you wouldn't be stating someone should do anything else other than what they determine will best meet needs (as long as they are not infringing upon your rights).
 

JamesIan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
113
Location
Ecorse, Michigan, USA
Sure.

You claim on one hand "no laws about carry", while on the other hand "this person should buy a handgun". If you truly understood freedom, then you wouldn't be stating someone should do anything else other than what they determine will best meet needs (as long as they are not infringing upon your rights).

I did not say what he SHOULD do, only what he CAN do. I was arguing the point that saying he only had two choices was a false dilemma. I am discouraged that you did not discern the difference between discussing the merits of an argument and the expression of a statist viewpoint.
 

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
I did not say what he SHOULD do, only what he CAN do. I was arguing the point that saying he only had two choices was a false dilemma. I am discouraged that you did not discern the difference between discussing the merits of an argument and the expression of a statist viewpoint.

The situation is such that his rights in the regard to a handgun are being violated... so he is left with little option... that is however a topic for another time.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
I did not say what he SHOULD do, only what he CAN do. I was arguing the point that saying he only had two choices was a false dilemma. I am discouraged that you did not discern the difference between discussing the merits of an argument and the expression of a statist viewpoint.

Are you positive it is a false dilemma? Do you know this person and what he CAN do? Does he have the money to purchase a pistol? Has he been denied pistol purchase permits by the local police department since Pistol Purchase Permits are still "May Issue"? Does he have the money to fight the denial in court? CAN is a big word since it assumes so much.

A simple perusal of this site could provide the answers to these questions...

Is it legal? Yes.

Should it be done? Every person to decide for themselves...
 

JamesIan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
113
Location
Ecorse, Michigan, USA
I'll grant that there may be special cases. Most people, myself included, would not be privy to that information. As for searching for that info on the site, I wouldn't know who or what to search for.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
I'll grant that there may be special cases. Most people, myself included, would not be privy to that information. As for searching for that info on the site, I wouldn't know who or what to search for.

In due time, I am sure you will find out who it is. The information is here...

As to "special cases", this type of language denotes rules and exceptions to rules - this is not Freedom. Rights and the Exercise of such as one sees fit - this is Freedom.
 

JamesIan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
113
Location
Ecorse, Michigan, USA
In may usage, a "special case" is an example to be compared against the whole of something. If you are so determined to label me an authoritarian that you will take a meaning out of context that contradicts my expressed belief, you are no longer discussing in good faith. I will respectfully bow out of this conversation.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
In may usage, a "special case" is an example to be compared against the whole of something. If you are so determined to label me an authoritarian that you will take a meaning out of context that contradicts my expressed belief, you are no longer discussing in good faith. I will respectfully bow out of this conversation.

You use labels sir where I do not and have expressly stayed away from such. In this and other threads, this truly derailed the discussion. I will not play such games.

I am discussing your construct of Freedom. If you truly understand Freedom, then there are no special cases for exercise of Rights.
 

JamesIan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
113
Location
Ecorse, Michigan, USA
You use labels sir where I do not and have expressly stayed away from such. In this and other threads, this truly derailed the discussion. I will not play such games.

I am discussing your construct of Freedom. If you truly understand Freedom, then there are no special cases for exercise of Rights.

Against my better judgement, I'll ask. What construct of freedom are you saying I have?
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Against my better judgement, I'll ask. What construct of freedom are you saying I have?

I don't know about PDinDetroit but what I get from your posts is that you are all for freedom.... done the way you think is appropriate, where you think it is appropriate, how you think is appropriate, by whom you think is appropriate, all of which should be regulated by the yardstick of whether or not any of that "offends" or "scares" people.

You know... we have the freedom to carry a gun... just not THAT gun, not in THAT way, not in THAT place (library perhaps?), not near THOSE people (think of the children!), not by THAT person, and most certainly not if it will... gasp! commit the awful crime of "offending someone" or "scaring someone".

Is my assessment of your position and the arguments you have offered to support that position correct?
 

JamesIan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
113
Location
Ecorse, Michigan, USA
I don't know about PDinDetroit but what I get from your posts is that you are all for freedom.... done the way you think is appropriate, where you think it is appropriate, how you think is appropriate, by whom you think is appropriate, all of which should be regulated by the yardstick of whether or not any of that "offends" or "scares" people.

You know... we have the freedom to carry a gun... just not THAT gun, not in THAT way, not in THAT place (library perhaps?), not near THOSE people (think of the children!), not by THAT person, and most certainly not if it will... gasp! commit the awful crime of "offending someone" or "scaring someone".

Is my assessment of your position and the arguments you have offered to support that position correct?

Is it 100% incorrect. I support none of those restrictions.

I don't want to discuss what should be legal. I am wide open in that regard. To get to that freedom, we will have to negotiate the rapids of public opinion. Not every course of action between here and total freedom will be equal. I only want the freedom discuss the relative wisdom of those various courses. Maybe what is being done is the best. Maybe there is a better way. I don't see anyone standing up for the idea that we can talk strategy.

I have not seen, to my satisfaction, that many people understand the difference between discussing what someone should legally be allowed to do and discussing what is the best course of action to promote the cause. If I were to say that you should have total freedom, but it is wisest to express less than your full freedoms in this case or another, I am not binding you to a course of action. I am not taking any of your freedoms. That statement is merely an evaluation of the tactics used.

I'll give you an example. My wife should and does have the freedom to tell me that I am overweight. She does not express that right every time she feels like it. Why? Not because she cannot or even should not. She doesn't do it because it is a less than optimal strategy for building our marriage.

I honestly don't know the best strategy to get from where we are to total freedom. Perhaps the majority here has it all locked down. I think I am wise enough to recognize what I don't know.

I hope this clears up my position. I hope in the future, that discussions of wisdom exclusive of legality can be better accepted here.
 

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
Is it 100% incorrect. I support none of those restrictions.

I don't want to discuss what should be legal. I am wide open in that regard. To get to that freedom, we will have to negotiate the rapids of public opinion. Not every course of action between here and total freedom will be equal. I only want the freedom discuss the relative wisdom of those various courses. Maybe what is being done is the best. Maybe there is a better way. I don't see anyone standing up for the idea that we can talk strategy.

I have not seen, to my satisfaction, that many people understand the difference between discussing what someone should legally be allowed to do and discussing what is the best course of action to promote the cause. If I were to say that you should have total freedom, but it is wisest to express less than your full freedoms in this case or another, I am not binding you to a course of action. I am not taking any of your freedoms. That statement is merely an evaluation of the tactics used.

I'll give you an example. My wife should and does have the freedom to tell me that I am overweight. She does not express that right every time she feels like it. Why? Not because she cannot or even should not. She doesn't do it because it is a less than optimal strategy for building our marriage.

I honestly don't know the best strategy to get from where we are to total freedom. Perhaps the majority here has it all locked down. I think I am wise enough to recognize what I don't know.

I hope this clears up my position. I hope in the future, that discussions of wisdom exclusive of legality can be better accepted here.
Read it again people.

I'm not against ANYONE, doing ANYTHING that's LEGAL!

But...I do ask that before anyone does anything they ask themselves if what they are about to do is another baby step toward or away from our ultimate goal.

Also, please keep in mind that we all here are not really that far apart on this issue but really only a small amount this way or that. We're all in this boat together.

It's just that some keep paddling while others like to poke holes in the boat.

We're not saying you have to paddle like the rest of us but damn....will you please stop trying to sink the damn boat!:rolleyes:

P.S. From reading it seems some cops got excited and someone went to the ER.
Bad cop, no doughnut. There's not much I hate more then a cop dishing out "street justice" or thinking they have a right to give someone an attitude adjustment.
If what I think happened, happened....we need to stand together and crush them.
 
Last edited:
Top