smellslikemichigan
Campaign Veteran
no, not at allThe forum owners. Is there a problem?:uhoh:
i was simply replying to Q since the thread was started by a moderator... just good fun
no, not at allThe forum owners. Is there a problem?:uhoh:
How about folks understand that other folks do not have to agree with SB59 or with the idea that SB59 is a positive step forward and not everyone has to agree with MOC's decision either? Believe it or not MOC does NOT speak for all gun owners nor should all gun owners genuflect before the altar of MOC's decisions.
Feel free to point out where I espoused that everyone should most definitely, without thought or dissent, agree with MOC. I didn't say that, nor did I say MOC spoke for all. My point was people should look at the positive. Discuss, dissent, debate are all good things, but people's responses were coming to "i'm taking my ball and going home"
Part of being an adult is being able to accept criticism and to meet that criticism head on with honest, logical, and reasonable, explanations.
I fail to see where MOC didn't accept criticism until it started becoming rude and nonconstructive. People asked what was going on and it was explained "BoD made a decision". People didn't like that, so there was time made for "public discourse with BoD"... if you didn't show to the public discourse, yeah, I don't think your say means much. There's a time for public discourse and there is a time that it closes. Just like any "official" meetings or board meetings go. I don't see how you can possibly claim that the initial answers weren't honest, logical, and reasonable.
Part of being a credible and respected organization is taking responsibility for it's decisions... and part of that responsibility is stepping up to explain to non members why it made a decision that affects more than just it's members... instead of getting all butt hurt that non members dared ask question about that decision.
Being part of a credible and respected organization is also knowing when to hold em and when to fold em. You say just above that "MOC doesn't represent all gun owners" then in the next breath state "their decisions affect more than it's members" and they "have a duty to explain to non members" So which is it?
Personally.... I believe SB59 to be a disaster of a bill that gives the State more control over the ability to bear arms and further entrenches the power of the State to do so while offering nothing more than yet another privilege that has to be begged for, paid to have, and ass kissed to get.
That's perfectly fine. I have less than zero problem with your stance on the law as well as you respectfully and honorably voicing your opinion and concern. I feel that is mostly how you have conducted yourself. IT is OTHER people who are getting all cry baby about it. As the poll showed, VIRTUALLY ZERO PEOPLE ACTUALLY OC IN A PFZ....at least on any type of basis that can be considered anything more than novelty... so they're pissed about something that only they do getting taken away in order that TONS of people can do it. Selfish. At least your arguments have logic and merit. Theirs is WAAAAA I WANNA OC.
Also, at least as far as I am concerned, the way MOC has handled defending it's decision has hurt it's credibility far more than the decision itself.
I think MOC were attacked at just about every turn by a small minority of very vocal people. They first acted respectfully but the increasing disrespect by the naysayers was met with increasing disrespect from leadership. Professional or not, can you blame people? Sometimes you give what you get. They DID give respectful thought out reasons... no one wanted to respect or accept that, so I guess the leadership said screw it... what can we do.
And I find it ludicrous for someone to say folks who do not agree with them are engaging in a "pissy pants cry baby routine" and then call for unity....
Again, you're misrepresenting what I said. I had no intention to say that anyone who disagreed with SB59 was "pissy pants cry baby" but there certainly were SEVERAL of them that were. I never said anything of the sort and I was strictly referring to a specific set of people... I apologize if I was unclear on that.
I think both sided have pushed this issue every way they can. It'd now be appropriate for each side to "do what they have to do/want to do" to either stop or support this bill.
Then we can all get back to pleasant conversation...
Likewise, I consider you mine.
That being said, using Florida and Texas law (which CLEARLY ban OC/printing) to back up your printing will be prosecuted argument is weak (nothing personal).
You said...First off, I want to say I have a lot of respect for you and your wisdom, BikeNut. That said, I think you've put a lot of words in my mouth.
Reply in blue...
Originally Posted by Bikenut
How about folks understand that other folks do not have to agree with SB59 or with the idea that SB59 is a positive step forward and not everyone has to agree with MOC's decision either? Believe it or not MOC does NOT speak for all gun owners nor should all gun owners genuflect before the altar of MOC's decisions.
Feel free to point out where I espoused that everyone should most definitely, without thought or dissent, agree with MOC. I didn't say that, nor did I say MOC spoke for all. My point was people should look at the positive. Discuss, dissent, debate are all good things, but people's responses were coming to "i'm taking my ball and going home"
I don't know how others read that but to me it appeared to say that MOC made their decision... and because there are folks who think it was a good one... everyone should just accept it and shut up. Did I misunderstand that? If so I sincerely apologize.HKcarrier said:-snip-
Stop raggin on TheQ and the rest of MOC as they made their decision and it was an educated one. If you don't like it, then run against them so you will have more of a say.-snip-
The leadership of an organization that wishes to protect the credibility of that organization do not respond to rudeness with rudeness... it is unbecomming and puts a negative light upon the organization. Not attending a meeting does not make questions, or the questioner, irrelevant and deserving of rude responses. An organization and/or it's leadership responding in that manner is unbecoming and damaging to it's credibility.Originally Posted by Bikenut
Part of being an adult is being able to accept criticism and to meet that criticism head on with honest, logical, and reasonable, explanations.
I fail to see where MOC didn't accept criticism until it started becoming rude and nonconstructive. People asked what was going on and it was explained "BoD made a decision". People didn't like that, so there was time made for "public discourse with BoD"... if you didn't show to the public discourse, yeah, I don't think your say means much. There's a time for public discourse and there is a time that it closes. Just like any "official" meetings or board meetings go. I don't see how you can possibly claim that the initial answers weren't honest, logical, and reasonable.
Originally Posted by Bikenut
Part of being a credible and respected organization is taking responsibility for it's decisions... and part of that responsibility is stepping up to explain to non members why it made a decision that affects more than just it's members... instead of getting all butt hurt that non members dared ask question about that decision.
Being part of a credible and respected organization is also knowing when to hold em and when to fold em. You say just above that "MOC doesn't represent all gun owners" then in the next breath state "their decisions affect more than it's members" and they "have a duty to explain to non members" So which is it?
Let me see... the ability to OC in a PFZ is currently there for anyone with a CPL if they choose to do it but because only a small number of folks are willing to do it the larger number of folks who want to have the ability to "feel safe" as they carry in PFZs because they have the express permission from the government to do it in a concealed manner justifies supporting the extra expense.. the extra hassle of getting extra training (the worth of which is up for debate).. positively eliminating the ability to OC in a PFZ...and handing the government control of yet another "infringement" on the right to bear arms?Originally Posted by Bikenut
Personally.... I believe SB59 to be a disaster of a bill that gives the State more control over the ability to bear arms and further entrenches the power of the State to do so while offering nothing more than yet another privilege that has to be begged for, paid to have, and ass kissed to get.
That's perfectly fine. I have less than zero problem with your stance on the law as well as you respectfully and honorably voicing your opinion and concern. I feel that is mostly how you have conducted yourself. IT is OTHER people who are getting all cry baby about it. As the poll showed, VIRTUALLY ZERO PEOPLE ACTUALLY OC IN A PFZ....at least on any type of basis that can be considered anything more than novelty... so they're pissed about something that only they do getting taken away in order that TONS of people can do it. Selfish. At least your arguments have logic and merit. Theirs is WAAAAA I WANNA OC.
Is my understanding correct? Because if it is then applying the standard of "selfish" rather depends on which side of the issue a person is standing.
Originally Posted by Bikenut
Also, at least as far as I am concerned, the way MOC has handled defending it's decision has hurt it's credibility far more than the decision itself.
I think MOC were attacked at just about every turn by a small minority of very vocal people. They first acted respectfully but the increasing disrespect by the naysayers was met with increasing disrespect from leadership. Professional or not, can you blame people? Sometimes you give what you get. They DID give respectful thought out reasons... no one wanted to respect or accept that, so I guess the leadership said screw it... what can we do.
Originally Posted by Bikenut
And I find it ludicrous for someone to say folks who do not agree with them are engaging in a "pissy pants cry baby routine" and then call for unity....
Again, you're misrepresenting what I said. I had no intention to say that anyone who disagreed with SB59 was "pissy pants cry baby" but there certainly were SEVERAL of them that were. I never said anything of the sort and I was strictly referring to a specific set of people... I apologize if I was unclear on that.
-snip-
Knock it off with the pissy pants cry baby routine because you didn't get everything you want.
-snip-
We need to be united on these fronts.
First off, I want to say I have a lot of respect for you and your wisdom, BikeNut. -snip-
It's amazing to me how people act as if this is going to be the last gun law ever passed, and this is what we will have to deal with for the rest of eternity and this is the best we can ever get...
Get real. This is a step. Once this step is completed, we can go for the next step. Don't like the way we have to "prove ourselves" as safe and what-not? Sorry, but that's REALITY. There's a AWFUL lot of soccer mom's out there that think you don't need a gun FOR ANY REASON.... so they're out there screaming in the law maker's ears too.. and they don't have anything else to do but bitch and take care of their precious snow flakes... we all have jobs... So take a reality check. This law is a GOOD thing and a step in the RIGHT direction for ALL of the firearms community. Knock it off with the pissy pants cry baby routine because you didn't get everything you want. Stop thinking ONLY OF YOURSELF and realize that this is the one of the steps of many that have come and many to come in order to get us to Con Carry.
Please. All this infighting is RE-G.D.-DICULOUS.
Stop raggin on TheQ and the rest of MOC as they made their decision and it was an educated one. If you don't like it, then run against them so you will have more of a say. Stop acting as if MOC controls the michigan legislature and has so much pull what they say will instantaneously add or subtract from the bill. MOC is one of MANY players on this wagon and can either be on the wagon or off, alone, all by themselves.
Instead they elected to be ON THE SAME TEAM, even to their own detriment in order to TAKE ONE FOR THE -TEAM- and do something that was good for EVERYONE ELSE but maybe not the best for THEM. Part of being a big boy and acting like an ADULT. Making hard and sometimes self sacrificial decisions.
We need to be united on these fronts. Discussion is great... talking about things and even disagreeing is great... but people are taking it too far.
And I find it ludicrous for someone to say folks who do not agree with them are engaging in a "pissy pants cry baby routine" and then call for unity....
The leadership of an organization that wishes to protect the credibility of that organization do not respond to rudeness with rudeness... it is unbecomming and puts a negative light upon the organization. Not attending a meeting does not make questions, or the questioner, irrelevant and deserving of rude responses. An organization and/or it's leadership responding in that manner is unbecoming and damaging to it's credibility.
And I politely asked questions and received rude responses in return.. including one with the implication that a 19 month old child has more comprehension than I. Again, such things do NOT put the organization in a good light.
scott623 said:to those who expect certain posters to have "tact and professionalism", you are likely to be continually disappointed. If you feel so strongly about certain people who hold certain positions posting in a certain manner...maybe you should hold those positions so you can control how professional they are perceived.
One is far more likely to be prosecuted under the new law if you accidentally step foot onto property whike oc that you did not know was owned by a church or school or any place listed in 425o.
This is probably the first real, good, logical reason to oppose this bill. Although being a reciprocal of the current law, you make the point that CCing would not be noticed and you'd likely not be prosecuted for a mistake, whereas OC would likely be noticed.
This is probably the first real, good, logical reason to oppose this bill. Although being a reciprocal of the current law, you make the point that CCing would not be noticed and you'd likely not be prosecuted for a mistake, whereas OC would likely be noticed.
Unless, of course, you're OCing in a 28.425o zone and a sweater momentarily flops over your gun. Cop sees sweater go over gun for brief moment and BOOM -- 28.425o violation. Why is no one talking about that?
Unless, of course, you're OCing in a 28.425o zone and a sweater momentarily flops over your gun. Cop sees sweater go over gun for brief moment and BOOM -- 28.425o violation. Why is no one talking about that?
How are you OCing? If you are in a CC-free zone, you need to make sure you don't cover your firearm.
The post posits a different scenario, that you might inadvertently enter an OC PFZ by virtue of non-obvious ownership. How likely is this? I don't know.