Straight_Shooter
Regular Member
imported post
My "side" is on open discussion. You are not providing it. You are also stated to be opposed to the other group while being in one group. You are far from partial.wrightme wrote:Straight_Shooter wrote:I post as I choose.wrightme wrote:If you are serious about attempting to work towards reasonable discussion towards a reasonable solution, you can further your cause GREATLY by working to be more reasonable. Calling names is counterproductive, as is ranting. Good luck, with your demeanor, you will likely need it.
There . . . I took out the "dipwads" . . . if that isn't enough to make me "reasonable". . . then so be it. Ignore what I have written above at your own peril . . . it is your freedom that stands to be lost, whether you like me or the way I communicate it or not.
BTW - was "TopGear being "resonable" up above when he called me a liar? I didn't see you post on him to suggest that he be "more reasonable" . . . you might want to consider that . . .
Have a nice evening . . .
SS
My suggestion is clear. If you desire reasonable dialog, show yourself to be reasonable.
That pretty much makes it clear . . you have a double set of standards for "reasonableness" . . . it all depends what "side" one is on . . and your "side" is clear.For you, "reasonable" only means totake your "side."You aren't interested in any "reasonable" discussion . . . only defending what you blindly cling to and won't even look at. Anyone who has a differing opinion is . . . "unreasonable." Those who share your opinion, no matter what they say, are . . "resonable."
Good evening again . . .
wrightme wrote:My "side" is on open discussion. You are not providing it. You are also stated to be opposed to the other group while being in one group. You are far from partial.
Post the document. Remove the doubt, otherwise it will remain there. It isn't about a differing opinion, it is about hiding information.
Since there is so much work to get it out, simply get the document posted.
The only "opinion" I share with others in this discussion is that you are not showing an honest face here.
Your side is simply "I don't believe that the information you are providing is genuine, because you won't post it in its entirety." But you don't challenge IC or the NRA to do the same thing . . . yes, I am "partial" . . I am clearly against this bill. That is not in dispute.
If I "am not showing an honest face," IC and the NRA are at the least showing a deceptive, stealth "face," because they don't want Iowa residents who are the ones impacted by this bill to even see what laws they are proposing. Who is worse: me, who is showing what I see as very bad portions of the bill, of they, who won't show anything that is being done to the residents of Iowa?
I am discussing the merits of the portion of thebill I have posted, and you are challenging the validity of the information provided, not discussing the bill . . Once again, please apply the same standard to ICand the NRA that you apply to me . . Ask THEM why they are not posting the bill as well . . . If the portions of thebill I have postedis a "lie," it is a simple matter for them to post the "real" bill and "put me to shame." As I have said elsewhere, if they change the bill and then post it to make me out to be a liar, that is fine with me . . . I will have succeeded in getting the bill "corrected." This isn't about me . . . it is about protecting the rights of honest people in Iowa.
wrightme wrote:As for what the NRA or IC have presented, I cannot call them to question for what they have not presented.
And the reason you cannot do this (or is it “will not?”)is?
Until and unless you and those like you whoimpose on me to post the entirebill without applying the SAME standard to the NRA and IC . . . I will ignore your requests. All of this would end if they would simply post the bill themselves . . . and they can change the wording to make me out to be a liar . . . as I have said, I don't care if they do that . . . because then the bad language in the bill would be gone. The NRA and IC, who both portend to stand for "shall issue" CCW, should simply submit a bill that changes ICA 724 from "may issue" to "shall issue" . . . without all this other rights infringing garbage. I cannot be any clearer with you . . . I don't care if you think what I have posted is NOT genuine . . . I understand that you and othersdon't, and that is entirely your prerogative . .
As am I, whether you believe it or not. But, present reality, as opposed to cherry-picking the parts you want to present out of context.wrightme wrote:As long as you bleat about the bill without posting what you have, you are not going to be taken seriously.
If you desire to effect change, you should care what others think about what you say.
Thanks for your opinion . . . obviously not shared by all . . .
I do care what others think . . . just not you. Regardless of what I may do to try and effect change, the change is coming anyway . . . I am only one small voice of many who are fed up with this kind of nonsense . . . .
Still new to this so correct me if I am wrong. After having read this forum topic and the forum topic entitled "Is there an open carry effort currently in Iowa?" I have gathered certain "facts" as to what is happening.
1. The NRA has a bill which they have decided to push this session.
2. Iowa Carry has stated that they will support the NRA bill.
3. Iowa Carry has a copy of the current NRA bill.
4. Straight_Shooter also has obtained a copy of the NRA bill.
So what would you have straight_shooter do? Join IowaCarry and fall silent until the bill is publicly released, maybe at the last hour? How do the citation standards on this forum apply a rule of law equally - to proposed legislation? By its very nature such legislation is a proposal and is not yet, nor may never, be fixed in law.Straight_Shooter ....I can understand what your trying to do. But, the fact remains...
(quoted from the forum rules)...
"7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc."
This would include proposed bills as well. Until you can post the bill you're referring to, we have no to go on but your words. You have NOTHING to back you up. That is the point that some here are REPEATEDLY trying to make to you.
I could post here that the US Government is going to start seizing guns tomorrow, and probably stir up some stuff. But its pointless to do so without the evidence.
Alternatively, you could have been open and presented the full text of the proposed bill, so that all could see it in context.All -
You win . . . this just isn't worth it . . . please reassure each other that the language that I have posted is phoney and that I concocted the whole thing for some kind of morbid fun . . . as one person put it, this has all been just an anti-gun "divide and conquer" conspiracy.
While I had intended to post more from the bill, it appears to serve no useful purpose because no one wants to read it anyway . . . I can't help but wonder if the fear that I might be right is what makes people act this way. I guess I can accept a lot of human failings when I realize that people are afraid.
Have a good evening,
SS
Assuming that is this year's Sorenson Bill, I'd say to support it regardless of what the NRA bill looks like.If the NRA-ILA proposed bill remains a bad bill, just support HF 596.