SAF gets heavyweight support in carry case motion to SCOTUS

[sudden valley gunner]

If it's taken as a slight, then so be it. I'm fed up with my fellow firearms owners cutting their nose off to spite their own face. When there are so many threats to our rights and well being, there are people more interested in finding fights within. What has Dave done but try to further our cause?

I apologize right now for any insult made, intended or not. But how about you guys try to focus more on the prise and less on stirring up squabbles amongst ourselves?

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

I respect your opinion, and it would be great if you had the same respect.

My comment were not about Dave, there were comments earlier about Dave , if you read the whole post I am very honest about Dave, I like Dave I don't always agree with him, I don't have to.

The question what has Dave done....... is a strawman argument, and not the point of this thread.

I understand and respect your right to strongly support large gun group guys, I respect some of their fights, and will even donate to ones I feel are right.

Just because some of us will not support all their actions and feel many of their fights are wrong and many of their policies are contrary to our own personal principles, does not mean we are more interested with "fights within" because who are they or you to tell me what fight is important or not? Especially when I don't agree with some of their tactics and positions? And fighting for all our rights and not compromising does not mean we are cutting off our noses for spite. That is just a political move by these organizations and those who support them to try to create this illusion that our liberties lie with them and that if we don't support them we must not support our liberties.

Bashing other gun rights groups are not allowed on this forum, and some take the position that even criticizing them in any way are bashing, so many of us have to word our criticisms in a way that may not come right out and say point blank what we mean.

For example when Alan Goittleib publicly announces he doesn't like OC because it gives away "tactical advantage", this statement would then disenfranchise some OC'ers and make them wonder why they would want to support someone against the deterrent effect of OC?

If you want to know my standpoint on gun control you can go to this link.....http://www.lpwa.org/libertarian-viewpoint-on-gun-legislation/

Moreover, I oppose all “compromises” made by so called pro-gun folks. Their intentions may be good. However,..........

I am going to make a preface though, the more divisive statement on other parties is not wholly mine and was changed although I did approve the change since it was Libertarian Specific site.

My statement was originally intended to show the wide diversity of beliefs and ideologies inside the libertarian party.

 

[DamonK]

I respect your opinion, and it would be great if you had the same respect.

My comment were not about Dave, there were comments earlier about Dave , if you read the whole post I am very honest about Dave, I like Dave I don't always agree with him, I don't have to.

The question what has Dave done....... is a strawman argument, and not the point of this thread.

I understand and respect your right to strongly support large gun group guys, I respect some of their fights, and will even donate to ones I feel are right.

Just because some of us will not support all their actions and feel many of their fights are wrong and many of their policies are contrary to our own personal principles, does not mean we are more interested with "fights within" because who are they or you to tell me what fight is important or not? Especially when I don't agree with some of their tactics and positions? And fighting for all our rights and not compromising does not mean we are cutting off our noses for spite. That is just a political move by these organizations and those who support them to try to create this illusion that our liberties lie with them and that if we don't support them we must not support our liberties.

Bashing other gun rights groups are not allowed on this forum, and some take the position that even criticizing them in any way are bashing, so many of us have to word our criticisms in a way that may not come right out and say point blank what we mean.

For example when Alan Goittleib publicly announces he doesn't like OC because it gives away "tactical advantage", this statement would then disenfranchise some OC'ers and make them wonder why they would want to support someone against the deterrent effect of OC?

If you want to know my standpoint on gun control you can go to this link.....http://www.lpwa.org/libertarian-viewpoint-on-gun-legislation/



I am going to make a preface though, the more divisive statement on other parties is not wholly mine and was changed although I did approve the change since it was Libertarian Specific site.

My statement was originally intended to show the wide diversity of beliefs and ideologies inside the libertarian party.

My bringing up the question what has Dave done is not a strawman argument, it was simply making a point. However, you and eye trying to draw me as defending the "large gun group guys" is. I've made no distinction between large or small. I don't care if it's the NRA or whatever local club. If they are fighting for a cause that benefits my beliefs then I will support them. Whining because a columnist is posting articles that support your views on here but doesn't hang around to debate them is akin to bitching because your favorite sports player just waved in passing instead of stopping by your house for dinner. Grow up, some people have better things to do than argue with you on this forum. Unfortunately for me I do not quite yet as I'm still trying to figure out this medical retirement stuff.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[eye95]

I have said nothing about you defending the "large gun group guys." If you want to draw a rebuke from me as quickly and as strongly as possible, put words in my mouth!

My complaint has always been that the OP constantly posts his articles and then walks away, ignoring any discussion of the merits of his article. That is arrogant. That is (and has been) the only point I am trying to make. Period. Don't make it sound like I am saying anything else. Period. Got it?

 

[DamonK]

I have said nothing about you defending the "large gun group guys." If you want to draw a rebuke from me as quickly and as strongly as possible, put words in my mouth!

My complaint has always been that the OP constantly posts his articles and then walks away, ignoring any discussion of the merits of his article. That is arrogant. That is (and has been) the only point I am trying to make. Period. Don't make it sound like I am saying anything else. Period. Got it?

Easy tough guy. I was referring to something that SVG had said. As far as your gripe, like I originally said; take the chip off your shoulder. He isn't try to insult you by not debating you. He's most likely not even aware of your existence. That's not to say one is some how higher than the other. Simply that you run in different circles. He's not going to debate you, it serves him in no way, win or lose. He simply writes an article that supports the ideals of most on this forum and then posts a thread so that we can all read it. So just cool your jets, not everything needs to lead to an arguement(this is my original point)

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[SavageOne]

Well, I never asked Mr. Workman to debate me. I asked him to expand on his original article and offer his opinion to a similar circumstance, he apparently couldn't be bothered. That is the point, made by several here. He chooses to post articles here, without staying around to discuss any points that may arise from his thoughts and words. This is shows great discourtesy to the members of this forum, in my opinion. Then again, he may not be able to articulate his thoughts in a back and forth arena and so limits his interaction to detached one off articles.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

My bringing up the question what has Dave done is not a strawman argument, it was simply making a point. However, you and eye trying to draw me as defending the "large gun group guys" is. I've made no distinction between large or small. I don't care if it's the NRA or whatever local club. If they are fighting for a cause that benefits my beliefs then I will support them. Whining because a columnist is posting articles that support your views on here but doesn't hang around to debate them is akin to bitching because your favorite sports player just waved in passing instead of stopping by your house for dinner. Grow up, some people have better things to do than argue with you on this forum. Unfortunately for me I do not quite yet as I'm still trying to figure out this medical retirement stuff.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

Nowhere did I complain about Dave's article posted here. I already know the owners of this site consider him a close personal friend and that horse is long dead.

You didn't make a point on topic you asked a question that you already had an assumed answer for that had nothing to do with refuting the topic being discussed at hand. Strawman.

And since you don't like the response you in turn reply with more ad hominem. Who needs to grow up? (these kind of attacks are funny and more telling of those who make them then who they accuse of not being as mature as them) Who has better things to do but argue and then keeps arguing?

 

[eye95]

Easy tough guy. I was referring to something that SVG had said...

You said "you and eye." First, you put words in my mouth, and then you lie about it. Knock the log off your own shoulder. I am so done. Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[DamonK]

Ok, fine. Eye, you go ahead and just keep finding insults and looking for arguments with people that support your own beliefs. Eventually you'll learn why that's a bad idea. I'm simply trying to draw your attention to what you are doing since you apperantly see nothing wrong with it.

SVG, I think we probably agree on the important stuff. We both carry and that's good enough for me.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[sudden valley gunner]

SVG, I think we probably agree on the important stuff. We both carry and that's good enough for me.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

I think we do too, thanks for posting outside the Washington specific threads, wish more folks from Washington would post outside the state, the wide variety of viewpoints and the inevitable arguments are a great strengthening tool to sharpen our mental faculties.

 

[KYGlockster]

WOW! Come on guys! Discuss the topic and quit crying about Dave Workman! He is a man and nothing more! He is an author and I am sure he does want his written work read, but he also wants us aware of what is going on. Just because he writes for a gun magazine or two doesn't mean he is a "big" guy or anything else, it just means he sets at a computer and sends an editor an article. Discuss the topic, not the man that posted the topic.

 

[SavageOne]

Sometimes threads branch into directions not intended, that doesn't mean the discussion generated is unwarranted. I personally don't feel asking someone to expand on a thread they started is "crying".

What point of the OP did you wish to discuss, or were you only interested in(by you own words) going off topic to chastise others, for going off topic?

 

[Batousaii]

... wow ...

... Seriously.. 3 pages of a derailed thread ?? - You guys are Gangster! ~ lol
<pops thread reset button>

 

[eye95]

Someone should do something about all these off-topic posts discuss off-topic posts.

Like this one. *searches for a whistling-innocently smiley*

 

[SavageOne]

... Seriously.. 3 pages of a derailed thread ?? - You guys are Gangster! ~ lol
<pops thread reset button>

Or you could pop the reply to thread button and discuss some point made in the original thread, it's obvious the OP won't.