Him or me

[HankT]

SA. I don't Think So!!:cuss:

If you disagree with anything I say, OCW, feel free to discuss the points of disagreement. I'm usually up for a good discussion. Good opporutinity to learn sumpin'.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis ... and all that ...

I would never suggest that a pro-SA gun-carrying member of OCDO "go somewhere else" simply because he had a different point of view than I hold. That's a rather, uhm, limited reaction.

 

[sultan62]

If you disagree with anything I say, OCW, feel free to discuss the points of disagreement. I'm usually up for a good discussion. Good opporutinity to learn sumpin'.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis ... and all that ...

I would never suggest that a pro-SA gun-carrying member of OCDO "go somewhere else" simply because he had a different point of view than I hold. That's a rather, uhm, limited reaction.

I believe part of the debate here is over whether or not you agree with the second amendment, as you apparently have different views over exactly what it means.

 

[since9]

Just my 2 cents on your posting on OCDO.

For what it's worth, dissent, even unpopular dissent, is what keeps message forums alive, provided the forum rules are adhered to, of course. When a forum allows itself to drive everyone away who doesn't adhere to the party line, it becomes a cesspool of mutually confirming goo.

OCDO's diversity is one of the reasons I keep coming back! It's interesting.

 

[eye95]

For what it's worth, dissent, even unpopular dissent, is what keeps message forums alive, provided the forum rules are adhered to, of course. When a forum allows itself to drive everyone away who doesn't adhere to the party line, it becomes a cesspool of mutually confirming goo.

OCDO's diversity is one of the reasons I keep coming back! It's interesting.

Not driving him away. Just wondering why someone would post somewhere where he seems fundamentally opposed to the ideas that brought most of the people together. You won't find me posting at moveon.org.

 

[confedneck]

I don't see that requiring some financial responsibility for, say, a gun carrier's stray shots, can be "limiting one's rights."

If some poor bloke is innocently walking down the street and gets shot in the head by some gun carrier a quarter of a mile away who is defending himself (or just being a goof with a gun), then it would be nice for his hospital or funeral expenses to be paid by the shooter's insurance company.

That's not "limiting" anything. Except for highly undesirable situations where poor citizens get blasted by a gun owner/carrier for absolutely no good reason.

So, I guess mandatory insurance would be "limiting" financial irresponsibility. But that's a good thing.

No, that's not limiting anything, it is, however the most ignorant thing I have heard today. You want me to have to have insurance, in case I am attacked, and while protecting myself, an innocent gets injured? That fault would lay with my attacker, NOT me.

 

[Ivan Sample]

Someone please tell me when it's okay to use your firearm to protect yourself? This question is for the folks that think they know everything and the ones who like to criticize others- who tell what happen to them. I want name names but you know who you are! If OP told us that he had to defend his self aganist a charging pitbull then he had to. There should be no questions asked ! I know for a fact that pitbulls could be nasty because I was bitten by one that looked friendly. So some folks need to grow up and act their age and not their size. OP you did what you had to and I'm glad that everything work out in your favor

 

[Johnny W]

Unfortunate as it may seem, a charging dog does seem like a threat even if the dog didn't mean it that way. I'd like to think I wouldn't shoot the dog until it was clear the dog wanted to bite rather than lick, but I don't know if I'm brave enough to suffer a dog bite if I'm wrong.

On the topic of gun-carrying insurance, I think it's just as feasible and necessary as free-speech and freedom-of-religion insurance. After all, the exercise of those rights has caused significant damages in many cases, has it not?

 

[Kirbinator]

Not driving him away. Just wondering why someone would post somewhere where he seems fundamentally opposed to the ideas that brought most of the people together. You won't find me posting at moveon.org.

I kinda wish we could get away from epic threads saying the same thing or arguing the same point for three pages.

 

[CharleyMarbles]

I kinda wish we could get away from epic threads saying the same thing or arguing the same point for three pages.

sorry if I sound confrontational but you are not being forced to read anything here????
I have to say the OP IMHO was justified in his defence of himself.
I will go on record that the idea of MANDITORY insurance is nothing more than an end run around TAXATION.
ok so that is my take hope I haven't offended anyone but if I have feel free to KEPP IT TO YOUR SELF your not going to change my mind on those topics.