Bullets

[wrightme]

That has also been clarified in previous posts, you'll have to read back up. There is also a forum search option.

Well, since the post where you state that new regulation without compromise is unwarranted, you have not retracted that view. This is simple. Do you support a compromise as you stated in your first post, or do you not?

 

[ChiangShih]

Well, since the post where you state that new regulation without compromise is unwarranted, you have not retracted that view. This is simple. Do you support a compromise as you stated in your first post, or do you not?

I'm sure I've answered any question you could possibly have, with detail, maaayyybeee you should just read back up.

 

[Thomas Masse]

Hey wrightme,
Why are you asking questions Chiang has already answered SEVERAL times? Why don't you just read back up?

 

[wrightme]

Hey wrightme,
Why are you asking questions Chiang has already answered SEVERAL times? Why don't you just read back up?

I have read sufficiently. He has not responded to the specific. As I see he is not willing to do so, I will not request his response further.

 

[ChiangShih]

I have read sufficiently. He has not responded to the specific. As I see he is not willing to do so, I will not request his response further.

Oh trust me, it is in there. I couldn't answer your question any better than I already have, maybe you should study back up

 

[Thomas Masse]

I have read sufficiently.

Obviously not.

 

[Richieg150]

After all, there are honestly some people out there who have no criminal record or documented mental instability, but who honestly should not be in possession of anything that could harm themselves or others.

Thats exactly the kind of thinking that scares me!WHO would decide who these people are?That reasoning falls along the lines of,You shouldnt carry a gun because I feel afraid,so my fear trumphs all and any rights you have.The government doesnt need ANY help trying to disarm the public as it is.They have a BLANKET RULE about felons having firearm,or ammunition.That exactly why more amd more violations of the law are becoming felonies,more felons mean less guns.There are MANY felony charges on the books,that dont incude a violent crime,robbery,ect...

 

[ChiangShih]

After all, there are honestly some people out there who have no criminal record or documented mental instability, but who honestly should not be in possession of anything that could harm themselves or others.

Thats exactly the kind of thinking that scares me!WHO would decide who these people are?That reasoning falls along the lines of,You shouldnt carry a gun because I feel afraid,so my fear trumphs all and any rights you have.The government doesnt need ANY help trying to disarm the public as it is.They have a BLANKET RULE about felons having firearm,or ammunition.That exactly why more amd more violations of the law are becoming felonies,more felons mean less guns.There are MANY felony charges on the books,that dont incude a violent crime,robbery,ect...

I agree, as the rest of my quote reads: "The solution to this will not come through blanket legislation or regulation and must be dealt with by a case by case basis. Though, even this, is unlikely to produce any sort of solution because the fact remains that crime and criminality is a highly complex social phenomenon. Behind every gun crime there are different stories, situations, contexts, motivations, or triggers. If there is not one cause there is not one answer. "

 

[Richieg150]

We ARE in agreement.But my point was WHO would decide this outcome on a case by case basis.THATS whats scary,once let let someone WHOEVER it is deciding cases like this,the outcome can only hurt and disarm the american people.....Just what the government wants!

 

[goalseter88]

We ARE in agreement.But my point was WHO would decide this outcome on a case by case basis.THATS whats scary,once let let someone WHOEVER it is deciding cases like this,the outcome can only hurt and disarm the american people.....Just what the government wants!

+1000 thats what i was saying. but no one wanted to answer that question. mainly i think, b/c they didnt have a answer for that.

 

[Richieg150]

Heres a few guys who wanted to make the people safer by disarming those dangerous people on a csae by case process......guess what the outcome was!!

 

[ChiangShih]

We ARE in agreement.But my point was WHO would decide this outcome on a case by case basis.THATS whats scary,once let let someone WHOEVER it is deciding cases like this,the outcome can only.....

Well, we already have people who decide who the mentally unstable or socially unfit are. Attempting to expand this or categorize citizens, of course, should never happen.

..hurt and disarm the american people.....Just what the government wants!

Careful with statements like these. Elements and individuals within a specific administration or organization may have aims to disarm or more strenuously regulate other citizens, but we must be careful in our speech and make such distinctions. We are not anarchists or anti-government here; we should support our American government and it's constitutional framework. This kind of speech is also what scares any legislators or government representatives away from 2A groups, and these are the people we need to support our cause. I respect your right to make your opinion clear but remember this is an open forum and the comments and remarks you make reflect upon the community as a whole.

PR can win legislative battles

 

[afcarry]

Careful with statements like these. Elements and individuals within a specific administration or organization may have aims to disarm or more strenuously regulate other citizens, but we must be careful in our speech and make such distinctions. We are not anarchists or anti-government here; we should support our American government and it's constitutional framework. This kind of speech is also what scares any legislators or government representatives away from 2A groups, and these are the people we need to support our cause. I respect your right to make your opinion clear but remember this is an open forum and the comments and remarks you make reflect upon the community as a whole.

PR can win legislative battles

Seems like someone said that at the beginning of page 2......oh. I have to agree with Chiang here, mainly because of my political opinions, but also because he put up the picture of a deer eating popcorn and thats awesome. But the issue has already been discussed. I will comment, however, if I may in order to draw you attention to the general behavior of this thread. When it began, it was a simple question and explain your answer. This is adolescence. We are not a group of twelve year old girls. "I have read sufficiently. He has not responded to the specific. As I see he is not willing to do so, I will not request his response further. " Then stop posting. Your cutting your limbs off one by one, so to speak. If you don't agree with the majority of Missouri represented by MO members, then agree to disagree. We will let you, I promise. The constant arguing is not only funny, but its counterproductive. I should be a moderator, I try to kill all the fun every time, lol.

 

[Misplaced Texan]

Hell No !!!!!!! Frankly Sir, that idea or even the thought of it offends the honor and sacrafice of my ENTIRE family. Our Clans have served this country with dignity and honor since before the Revolutionary War. Our ancestors did not fight and die just to have our God-Given rights trampled upon by the government or by fuzzy-feel good people that are willing to forfeit their rights and in turn ours' at the drop of a hat.
If you feel compelled to have your background run by this tyrannical government then that's all you. But to even entertain doing anything to force your wish upon the rest of us that have no desire to do so is not only wrong but it is blasphemy.
And if you think that doing this is going to do anything to help the "problem", It won't. Cause doing this will not stop the criminals from getting the ammo THEY USE. If you think that "THIS" would, you really ain't got a clue about the real world.....

 

[goalseter88]

Hell No !!!!!!! Frankly Sir, that idea or even the thought of it offends the honor and sacrafice of my ENTIRE family. Our Clans have served this country with dignity and honor since before the Revolutionary War. Our ancestors did not fight and die just to have our God-Given rights trampled upon by the government or by fuzzy-feel good people that are willing to forfeit their rights and in turn ours' at the drop of a hat.
If you feel compelled to have your background run by this tyrannical government then that's all you. But to even entertain doing anything to force your wish upon the rest of us that have no desire to do so is not only wrong but it is blasphemy.
And if you think that doing this is going to do anything to help the "problem", It won't. Cause doing this will not stop the criminals from getting the ammo THEY USE. If you think that "THIS" would, you really ain't got a clue about the real world.....

+1, i think the last paragraph has a lot of truth.

 

[devildoginlipstick]

:banghead:

NO! Not just No but H*** NO!!! Total waste of money. Good Lord dude, the laws don't stop the criminals from owning guns illegally, do you REALLY think a law will prohibit them from getting their meat hooks on bullets? Get real! No amount of laws are ever going stop the criminal elliment. The only thing that will stop a killer or a rapist is some good Ol Fashioned Justice. NOT some frivilous law that hasn't succeeded in preventing them from getting their hands on guns. What on earth makes you think ANOTHER law would make two nickels worth of difference??? It just might me YOUR house they break into in order to resupply. Is your law gonna make a difference then?

 

[goalseter88]

Seems like someone said that at the beginning of page 2......oh. I have to agree with Chiang here, mainly because of my political opinions, but also because he put up the picture of a deer eating popcorn and thats awesome. But the issue has already been discussed. I will comment, however, if I may in order to draw you attention to the general behavior of this thread. When it began, it was a simple question and explain your answer. This is adolescence. We are not a group of twelve year old girls. "I have read sufficiently. He has not responded to the specific. As I see he is not willing to do so, I will not request his response further. " Then stop posting. Your cutting your limbs off one by one, so to speak. If you don't agree with the majority of Missouri represented by MO members, then agree to disagree. We will let you, I promise. The constant arguing is not only funny, but its counterproductive. I should be a moderator, I try to kill all the fun every time, lol.

i kinda lost here, you side with chaing. then you go off on writeme for his nonstop posting. when chaingshih kept going just as much as writeme. sounds kinda odd to me.dam that deer really adds points. i cant add a deer eating popcorn, but i can add a pic of a girl drinking from a soda can thats in another girls, nevermind, i think i going past the pg rating of this forum

i agree this was counterproductive. but i think writeme deserves a bit more credit then he is given. first he didnt correct mobodyguards gramar in a rude fashion. chaingshih i think was a bit overly eager to protect his buddy IMHO. and he the one that attacked him with an attack. while he might not like the correcting grammar that writeme did, writeme has a point atleast, that poor grammar does effect proper communication. hell i had a long posting about my grammar, even one of chaingshih group members joined in on it.(to bad he wasnt on here at the time, been nice to see if he would of defended me also,that way we know if he just did this time b/c he hangs out with MObodyguard). but chaingshih post of lets not play the correcting grammar for lack of input/better arguement statement had little to know truth behind it.

and the other thing that i think is lost here, is that writeme was consistant all the way threw, while chaing would say one thing then do say the opposite. for example. he first is talking about how about adding a ammo regulation for a deregulation on full autos. then later posts a question to writme on if he against useless laws, implying he is also against useless laws. but that new regulation would be a useless law. just b/c you switched the regulation, dosent mean its a good or non useless regulation. which writeme pointed out. and i didnt see chaing able to reply to that. and then another good example. is what you just replied too. he makes a big arguement with writeme. then posts about being carefull with your statements towards Reicheig comment. so its okay to make a big arguement which is prob not good for the OC group. and then your going to tell someone else to watch what you say in fear that it will hurt the OC movement? writeme was consistant, didnt say one thing, then say the opposite later. i think that diserves credit.

and as far as you basically saying that the majority is for chaing and not writeme. thats not really well proved, i say that b/c of this. it seems generally on these forums, its pretty easy to get someone to defend OP even if he wrong(not saying the OP is wrong on this specific thread this is a general statement), but most people arent going to defend or back the person who against the OP, even if he is right. mainly due to the fact that they dont want to get into the fight. its easy to back the person defending. you can generally say you agree and back out and keep a good reputation for your username. but people who agree with the person against the OP, are afraid to go in on backing the guy against the OP in fear of ruining their reputation.So your implication that the majority is on chaing side, i think cant really be fairly determined.

but i also think this was bound to happen. MObodyguard should know this was going to happen. i mean you talk about adding regulations on a pro gun site, you should know the answer. so while he did get a lot of flak for it, he should of expected it. and stuff like this can get a normal laid back person in a bind when he hears other gun people promoting anti gun regulations. besides this thread i always agreed with what chaing has done, i think his website is fantastic. writeme, i dont know well enough, so cant say much about him. but i hope that its just the both just let this thread get to them. and hopefully well never see this topic again.

 

[wrightme]

but i hope that its just the both just let this thread get to them.

This thread didn't "get to me."

 

[Misplaced Texan]

Well, we already have people who decide who the mentally unstable or socially unfit are. Attempting to expand this or categorize citizens, of course, should never happen.



Careful with statements like these. Elements and individuals within a specific administration or organization may have aims to disarm or more strenuously regulate other citizens, but we must be careful in our speech and make such distinctions. We are not anarchists or anti-government here; we should support our American government and it's constitutional framework. This kind of speech is also what scares any legislators or government representatives away from 2A groups, and these are the people we need to support our cause. I respect your right to make your opinion clear but remember this is an open forum and the comments and remarks you make reflect upon the community as a whole.

PR can win legislative battles

Are you a politician or a lawyer ??? No offense, Just askin cuz of the way ya string them words together.

So basically what your sayin, is that you think we should all keep our true feeling and opinions to ourselves and play nice with the little childish children in DC and other sandboxes........Well I ain't never been one to be PC, I'm a 41 year old transplanted Cowboy/Redneck from the edge of the Pineywoods and now a Southern Missouri Redneck that don't like or trust government and I don't like for any dang body telling me what the heck I can or cannot say or how I should say it. Our Republic don't stand a chance if people don't stand up and find their backbone. It's We The People........ not we the sheeple....I ain't goin to be the lamb on the skewer.......I ain't askin nobody fer nuttin and I sure ain't bout to get down on my knees and beg somebody for somethin that the good Lord made sure I had when I hit the ground.

 

[ChiangShih]

but i think writeme deserves a bit more credit then he is given. first he didnt correct mobodyguards gramar in a rude fashion.

My response to writeme was not just based on the grammar correction, but as I previously stated, a perception of rude intent in his responses. This is a matter of opinion and the majority seemed to agree with my opinion. Therefore, as this is a matter of social perception, and the majority of the social group shared this perception, it should suffice to say, he was being rude. Though I can admit, I was eager to defend a friend who I felt needed it.

and the other thing that i think is lost here, is that writeme was consistant all the way threw, while chaing would say one thing then do say the opposite. for example. he first is talking about how about adding a ammo regulation for a deregulation on full autos. then later posts a question to writme on if he against useless laws, implying he is also against useless laws.

Simply put, if you found inconsistency in my posts or opinions you've failed to properly read and understand what I wrote. As I previously state (Multiple times) My stance from the very first post was in opposition to more regulation(without balance). This means, that there must remain a status quo of liberty and freedom in relation to the 2A, and all context must be governed by the constitutional framework. I simply interjected hypothetical scenarios of balanced reg and dereg to give directed thought on what I mean when speaking of balance. I understand where the context and wording of my posts, as well as the conveyed thought processes, may have been hard to follow and I don't fault anyone for misunderstanding. It should be clear if one were to read back over them with this explanation in mind. In fact, I challenge you to provide any example of a direct contradiction in my writing. If you can bring one to light I'll be more than happy to admit fault and attempt to explain my meaning. (of course this offer only stands for anyone but writeme, as I've already explained to him many times my stance on the matter)

Now, I will admit, it would have been better judgment on my behalf to have walked away from this thread long ago. It takes two (or like 4 in this case) to tango and we can't all be professional all the time
And there is something to be said for you throwing more fuel onto this fire.

Anyway, I'm glad you enjoy the website and I agree, this subject and thread needs to die here. Partly because I do believe you and I both will be enjoying BBQ this weekend, so lets not let this thread cause any animosity or discomfort between anyone. We are all OC advocates, even if we disagree now and again.