Told you so: agreeing to any criminalization of OC is BAD!

[DanM]

Heckling is in the eye of the beholder.

It's not subjective like that. Either posts adhere to the terms of use, or they do not. If they do not, moderators should warn the offender.

We received more complaints recently about YOU, than anyone else, including 'you know who'.

As I wrote elsewhere, there are complaints, and then there are valid complaints. I respect this site and objective moderation, and I will comply with moderator guidance if I need correction on a violation of terms of use. If someone "complains" about my posts, but my posts are relevant, civil, and are addressing people directly who are posting to me, then I am not one who is doing anything wrong.

I have not taken any action except a gentle comment about what seemed to be in impending urination contest directed at multiple people

Again, similar to what I wrote elsewhere, those of us fairly in line with terms of use are not responsible for those others who are going further beyond terms of use and getting into a urination contest. All of my posts have been relevant, civil, and directly addressing those who post to me. I am not the problem, but if you have a specific post from me where I am offending and it is an offense you are enforcing with everyone, I will take your guidance respectfully and comply. I respect this site, and I respect your moderation if it is objective and fairly targeting those who actually violate terms of use.

 

[Shadow Bear]

It's not subjective like that. Either posts adhere to the terms of use, or they do not. If they do not, moderators should warn the offender.



As I wrote elsewhere, there are complaints, and then there are valid complaints. I respect this site and objective moderation, and I will comply with moderator guidance if I need correction on a violation of terms of use. If someone "complains" about my posts, but my posts are relevant, civil, and are addressing people directly who are posting to me, then I am not one who is doing anything wrong.



Again, similar to what I wrote elsewhere, those of us fairly in line with terms of use are not responsible for those others who are going further beyond terms of use and getting into a urination contest. All of my posts have been relevant, civil, and directly addressing those who post to me. I am not the problem, but if you have a specific post from me where I am offending and it is an offense you are enforcing with everyone, I will take your guidance respectfully and comply. I respect this site, and I respect your moderation if it is objective and fairly targeting those who actually violate terms of use.

Unlike The Q, I have no interest in engaging in a pointless debate with you for three pages. He is far more patient than I.

 

[Shadow Bear]

Yeah I remember that lol...

And Dan no disrespect but you lost this argument about 3 or more pages back what is it they say about more valor... Just let it go we don't all have to agree all the time... But do think about the rights vs privileges more as you may be surprised that what you keep saying is a right is not.

If you keep repeating it over and over and over, it will become correct. Ask any democrat....

 

[DanM]

Unlike The Q, I have no interest in engaging in a pointless debate with you for three pages. He is far more patient than I.

This started with your message to Q and I "ease up gentlemen." You are a moderator, and I took it as a moderator warning. I did not understand why you were including me in the warning, as I see no significant TOU violations on my part. However, I respect this site and respect objective moderation and will comply with it, so that is the background of my responses to you.

If all this is pointless and you'd rather do without it, then please don't include me in the future on your warnings, if I'm not the one substantively violating TOU. Because if I'm included, I WILL start asking you questions so that I can understand and comply. You are a moderator. I'm not going to ignore your warnings if I'm included on them.

 

[Skeeterkiller]

This started with your message to Q and I "ease up gentlemen." You are a moderator, and I took it as a moderator warning. I did not understand why you were including me in the warning, as I see no significant TOU violations on my part. However, I respect this site and respect objective moderation and will comply with it, so that is the background of my responses to you.

If all this is pointless and you'd rather do without it, then please don't include me in the future on your warnings, if I'm not the one substantively violating TOU. Because if I'm included, I WILL start asking you questions so that I can understand and comply. You are a moderator. I'm not going to ignore your warnings if I'm included on them.

Rules violation...

(18) PRIVATE MESSAGES: The content of private messages are NOT completely private in that they may be reported to the administrator should the private messaging function be used to harass or spam another user. However, the content of private messages should not be posted publicly on the forum in an attempt to embarrass or discredit another member.

 

[DanM]

Rules violation...

(18) PRIVATE MESSAGES: The content of private messages are NOT completely private in that they may be reported to the administrator should the private messaging function be used to harass or spam another user. However, the content of private messages should not be posted publicly on the forum in an attempt to embarrass or discredit another member.

I'll bet you my AR-15 against yours, or your $800 if you don't have one, that no such violation applies to me.

Deal? Put your AR or money where your mouth is.

If wagering on this site is not permitted, the above is simply a metaphoric expression of my certainty and not an actual offer to wager. PM me for my personal contact info.

(Edit to add smiley. I was amused.)

 

[Ezerharden]

Rules violation...

(18) PRIVATE MESSAGES: The content of private messages are NOT completely private in that they may be reported to the administrator should the private messaging function be used to harass or spam another user. However, the content of private messages should not be posted publicly on the forum in an attempt to embarrass or discredit another member.

The message referred to wasn't a PM but a public post several pages back.

 

[HKcarrier]

Ok let me try this slower. You put in bold "I LOST something to a compromise that is said to be a victory." then ask what I lost. I have repeated many times, I, and others, lost the ability to CC in what are now PFZ's. PFZ's were added to get Shall Issue passed. It was a COMPROMISE. Before Shall Issue, follw me here, I did say BEFORE, there were no PFZ's for CC. You could CC pretty much anywhere except of course courthouses, federal buildings. Now along comes a bill to make Michigan a Shall Issue state, benefiting most of the states citizens at the expense of adding PFZ's. So the minority (the ones with CPL's already) were "thrown under the bus" as most here like to say for the benefit of the majority. It was a compromise. Now also understand that prior to Shall Issue, you could not OC or CC in many places like schools. With the advent of Shall Issue, you can OC in a school all because of a compromise made by CC'rs that gave you the ability to more easily get a CPL that you have to OC have to carry in a school.

So your ability to OC in a PFZ that you are so fond of came about because people lost the right they already had to CC there to make Michigan Shall Issue, making getting a CPL easier, and making OC in a PFZ allowable.

Get it now? Prior to 2001, I could CC in many areas I can not now because Shall Issue introduced PFZ's.

Game, Set, Match.


How this abortion made it to 6 pages is beyond me.... respect was lost....

 

[Skeeterkiller]

I'll bet you my AR-15 against yours, or your $800 if you don't have one, that no such violation applies to me.

Deal? Put your AR or money where your mouth is.

If wagering on this site is not permitted, the above is simply a metaphoric expression of my certainty and not an actual offer to wager. PM me for my personal contact info.

(Edit to add smiley. I was amused.)

YOU stated it was a MESSAGE (and not a posting) right here...

This started with your message to Q and I "ease up gentlemen." You are a moderator, and I took it as a moderator warning. I did not understand why you were including me in the warning, as I see no significant TOU violations on my part. However, I respect this site and respect objective moderation and will comply with it, so that is the background of my responses to you.

If all this is pointless and you'd rather do without it, then please don't include me in the future on your warnings, if I'm not the one substantively violating TOU. Because if I'm included, I WILL start asking you questions so that I can understand and comply. You are a moderator. I'm not going to ignore your warnings if I'm included on them.

Which was it? A message? Or a post? If it was a posting, then you are the winner. You sure you want my Oly Arms AR? I couldn't give it away 2 months ago.

 

[Raggs]

YOU stated it was a MESSAGE (and not a posting) right here...



Which was it? A message? Or a post? If it was a posting, then you are the winner. You sure you want my Oly Arms AR? I couldn't give it away 2 months ago.

Pat quibbling over words really?

 

[Skeeterkiller]

Pat quibbling over words really?

But words have meanings. Like the differences being discussed between "rights" and "privileges."

 

[Raggs]

But words have meanings. Like the differences being discussed between "rights" and "privileges."

I would agree

 

[Ezerharden]

Game, Set, Match.


How this abortion made it to 6 pages is beyond me.... respect was lost....

Not sure what that means, but if you are implying a loss of respect toward me, all I can say is if someone is going to shout no compromise, yet approve of an environment (shall issue) that was achieved through compromise (creation of CC PFZ's where CC used to be legal), then I could care less if they respect me.

If I have misunderstood your post, then please disregard.

 

[HKcarrier]

Not sure what that means, but if you are implying a loss of respect toward me, all I can say is if someone is going to shout no compromise, yet approve of an environment (shall issue) that was achieved through compromise (creation of CC PFZ's where CC used to be legal), then I could care less if they respect me.

If I have misunderstood your post, then please disregard.

No, I was implying you made an excellent point and I didn't see how it could really be refuted.... though obviously there wasn't lack of trying....

So yes... disregarded.

 

[Ezerharden]

No, I was implying you made an excellent point and I didn't see how it could really be refuted.... though obviously there wasn't lack of trying....

So yes... disregarded.

Thank you for clarifying and sorry I misunderstood.

 

[mastiff69]

All i will say on this issue is that a few were & are willing to give away a oc right as it is now so that they can carry cc in schools etc. & in the process will make it Illegal to oc in those areas & if seen will be subject to criminal proceedings & loss of money & cpl rights& privies.

We are a OC group NOT A CC group & if those members want CC maybe they should leave this org for CC org's !
I know that certain individuals made deals with the other group's to get favors in the future which will not benefit this ORG or the people that OC.
So all of you that are willing to give away my right to OC, maybe someday someone is going to give away a right that you will want to keep 2nd admin etc......

Keep making back yard deals with the DEVIL & you will get burned......

Dan m & others have been on here trying to get the truth out & management denied the truth about SB59 til it got tabled & then the real facts came out, then all we heard was dead silence !!!!!

 

[Ezerharden]

All i will say on this issue is that a few were & are willing to give away a oc right as it is now so that they can carry cc in schools etc. & in the process will make it Illegal to oc in those areas & if seen will be subject to criminal proceedings & loss of money & cpl rights& privies.

We are a OC group NOT A CC group & if those members want CC maybe they should leave this org for CC org's !
I know that certain individuals made deals with the other group's to get favors in the future which will not benefit this ORG or the people that OC.
So all of you that are willing to give away my right to OC, maybe someday someone is going to give away a right that you will want to keep 2nd admin etc......

Keep making back yard deals with the DEVIL & you will get burned......

Dan m & others have been on here trying to get the truth out & management denied the truth about SB59 til it got tabled & then the real facts came out, then all we heard was dead silence !!!!!

Actually, was it giving away an OC privilege, that only exists with a CPL, or was it restoring a right lost to accommodate all of Michigan's citizens to be able to get a CPL if they are qualified? Yes this is an OC group, but it is also, first and foremost as I see it, a firearms rights group and that means support of all forms of carry.

BTW, just out of curiosity what group are you a member of? As far as I know you are not a member of MOC, and I don't think OCDO has a lobbying presence in MI (no offense meant to the site owner).

 

[Shadow Bear]

All i will say on this issue is that a few were & are willing to give away a oc right as it is now so that they can carry cc in schools etc. & in the process will make it Illegal to oc in those areas & if seen will be subject to criminal proceedings & loss of money & cpl rights& privies.

We are a OC group NOT A CC group & if those members want CC maybe they should leave this org for CC org's !
I know that certain individuals made deals with the other group's to get favors in the future which will not benefit this ORG or the people that OC.
So all of you that are willing to give away my right to OC, maybe someday someone is going to give away a right that you will want to keep 2nd admin etc......

Keep making back yard deals with the DEVIL & you will get burned......

Dan m & others have been on here trying to get the truth out & management denied the truth about SB59 til it got tabled & then the real facts came out, then all we heard was dead silence !!!!!

I think I remember that thread- someone was repeatedly demanding an answer from MOC, but refusing to go on the MOC forum to ask their questions. IIRC, there was plenty of discussion on MOC, and at their meetings, about SB59. I don't see where any organization is obligated to reply to issues of their decisions on any other site than their own. First, its OCDO, then MGO, then every Tom, Dick and Mike forum. No one has the resources to monitor and respond to every post everywhere, nor should they be required to.

When you have a bone to pick WITH MOC, go pick it AT MOC; no amount of complaining here will get you answer.

Meanwhile, no one said you couldn't go to Lansing and meet with the legislature and give them a list of your demands. You did, didn't you?

 

[Shadow Bear]

All i will say on this issue is that a few were & are willing to give away a oc right as it is now so that they can carry cc in schools etc. & in the process will make it Illegal to oc in those areas & if seen will be subject to criminal proceedings & loss of money & cpl rights& privies.

We are a OC group NOT A CC group & if those members want CC maybe they should leave this org for CC org's !
I know that certain individuals made deals with the other group's to get favors in the future which will not benefit this ORG or the people that OC.
So all of you that are willing to give away my right to OC, maybe someday someone is going to give away a right that you will want to keep 2nd admin etc......

Keep making back yard deals with the DEVIL & you will get burned......

Dan m & others have been on here trying to get the truth out & management denied the truth about SB59 til it got tabled & then the real facts came out, then all we heard was dead silence !!!!!

BTW, its more than a few. Its a few hundred thousand who would be willing to sacrifice OC for CC in a PFZ. This is not a battle that a few on the fringe can win. The weight of 340,000 CPL holders will carry the fight. If it comes OC vs. CC in a PFZ, I'll take the human rights of thousands over dozens, every day. Call me whatever you like, but the correct term is 'pragmatist'.

 

[Ezerharden]

BTW, its more than a few. Its a few hundred thousand who would be willing to sacrifice OC for CC in a PFZ. This is not a battle that a few on the fringe can win. The weight of 340,000 CPL holders will carry the fight. If it comes OC vs. CC in a PFZ, I'll take the human rights of thousands over dozens, every day. Call me whatever you like, but the correct term is 'pragmatist'.

or 'morally ethical realist'