So now I'm an anti

[eye95]

It's up for vote?

Should Marshall leave? I vote no.

Is Marshall an anti because of a safety viewpoint? I vote No.

Binary thinking results in a lot of labeling similar to what happened here.

If it offends him so much, there is a door, and he is free to use it. No vote we should take matters.

Oh, and starting one of these threads, hoping for a bunch of people to cry, "Please don't go!" is kinda sad.

So I say, "Go if you want. Stay if you want. But, don't threaten to leave, just go."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[eye95]

Self-esteem is based in what you think.

Self-respect is based on what you do.

I am talking about how people use the terms. Whenever someone talks self-esteem, they talk about how others damaged it. When folks talk self-respect, they talk about how one built it for himself.

THHHBBBTTT on self-esteem. Take responsibility for your own self-image by doing things that are respectable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[WalkingWolf]

Just because "public safety" is often used to repress political opponents doesn't mean there's no such thing as a public safety concern. I support people's right to do meth, but not to build a meth lab in the next door apartment. I support people's right to carry a gun, but not to act in a way that puts me in the line of fire of that gun. You're asking for some sort of comprehensive study of all rifles ever demonstrating that accidents are capable of happening with them? The article on the Remington 700 refutes the argument you gave because the argument you gave is that guns never go off without a finger on the trigger. Your new position, stated or not, is now that guns rarely go off without a finger on the trigger, and besides, it might depend on the gun because there isn't enough hard evidence to establish a positive claim for every rifle ever. I don't care how often "rarely" corresponds to, that's a lot of risk to subject strangers to for the sake of the liberty of carrying your rifle at a slightly different angle.

The 700 is NOT even close to a AR, that would be like bringing up a matchlock BP rifle. It is stupid to bring that kind of misdirection, even more dumb to defend it.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Binary thinking results in a lot of labeling similar to what happened here.

If it offends him so much, there is a door, and he is free to use it. No vote we should take matters.

Oh, and starting one of these threads, hoping for a bunch of people to cry, "Please don't go!" is kinda sad.

So I say, "Go if you want. Stay if you want. But, don't threaten to leave, just go."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

+ 1 sometimes we can agree. Vanity threads are for Well vanity.

 

[OC for ME]

I think the majority do not want to have rights infringed IF it concerns THEIR liberty. They are more than happy to go with the flow as long as they get what is vital to them. Few support ALL liberty, including liberty that does not affect them personally.

Clearly demonstrated by this site the majority is in favor of some restrictions to liberty, as long as it fits their bias.

My liberty is important to me, and your liberty is important you. But, your liberty is just not as important as my liberty. But, if your liberty is eroded I can only conclude that my liberty will be eroded, so, I must work to maintain and/or restore your liberty and thus my liberty will be maintained/restored.

A FUDD is a good example of that which I speak.

 

[Grapeshot]

I am talking about how people use the terms. Whenever someone talks self-esteem, they talk about how others damaged it. When folks talk self-respect, they talk about how one built it for himself.

THHHBBBTTT on self-esteem. Take responsibility for your own self-image by doing things that are respectable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Others may damage your reputation, but not directly your self-esteem.

Grandpa once sagely said, "When they talk about me, at least they are leaving someone else alone."

 

[marshaul]

For the record, I wasn't asked to be begged to stay. As I said in my OP, I spend quite a lot of time on this site, and if I'm viewed as an "anti" it's probably wasted time. Those folks who said "stay, or leave, but I don't think you're an anti" answered what I wanted to know.

I wasn't "threatening" to leave, for the same reason: if I'm viewed as an anti, then the site loses nothing by my departure. If the site doesn't, then my departure isn't on the table. Not much of a threat.

Thanks to this thread, it's clear that that view is a minority.

Incidentally, my self-respect nor self-esteem was never in question. I am proud of who I am and the stands I make. It's merely been a question of efficient use of my time.

 

[marshaul]

Clearly demonstrated by this site the majority is in favor of some restrictions to liberty, as long as it fits their bias.

Again with the bait-and-switch.

Social pressure ≠ legal repercussions (restrictions), no matter how you try to claim it does.

There's a big difference between, "we should change society so that people don't want guns", and "we should encourage everyone to be armed, and to do so safely so as to defer criticism of their being so". Both are forms of social engineering. One harms us; the other benefits us.

Issues and systems so complex are never black-and-white.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

. It's merely been a question of efficient use of my time.

It's an internet forum. So no, not an efficient use of your time.

 

[marshaul]

It's an internet forum. So no, not an efficient use of your time.

In one way, you're right. But in another way, this is one of the few places I've discovered where rational discourse tends to win the day. It helps me develop my rhetorical skills, if nothing else.

Heck, where else on the internet would you accuse me of engaging in criminal behavior for saying something which could be construed as advocating application of existing laws, and I would subsequently agree with you? :lol:

Maybe the Reason commentariat would say something similar, but there's too much snark and, frankly, bad language for it to be a serious venue for discussion.

 

[Freedom1Man]

The 700 is NOT even close to a AR, that would be like bringing up a matchlock BP rifle. It is stupid to bring that kind of misdirection, even more dumb to defend it.

You had said long gun not an AR variant. Since a Remmington 700 is a long gun the comparison is valid.

The safety issue was also there on the model 721, I caught the problem on a gun I had purchased for someone else as a gift.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Clearly demonstrated by this site the majority is in favor of some restrictions to liberty, as long as it fits their bias.

How so?

 

[MAC702]

It's up for vote?...

Hell, if it's up to a vote, can we nominate some more candidates?

 

[WalkingWolf]

You had said long gun not an AR variant. Since a Remmington 700 is a long gun the comparison is valid.

The safety issue was also there on the model 721, I caught the problem on a gun I had purchased for someone else as a gift.

This whole hubalooo is about the AR carried by a OCer in Wisconson. AND the 700 IS NOT a AR or a common rifle to open carry. It is a bullpoop comparison, because there is no evidence of OCers of long guns rifles magically discharging without the trigger being pulled.

Unless you can pull a case of a OCer with REMINGTON 700 who has had a ND... Otherwise it is a weak attempt to twist like a progressive anti gun zealot.

 

[Citizen]

I didn't read all of this thread, nor the one linked in the OP.

But, based on what I gather, the LGOCer needs to improve his gun handling.

I can't really see requiring those nearby to first determine whether the bolt is locked back or the safety engaged before ducking. And, I can see a trigger snagged on clothes or something in the environment as a distinct possiblity. Combine that with a chambered round and a muzzle that is sweeping someone, and you've got the makings of tragedy.

The Four Rules are layers of safety. Often, it takes violating more than one at the same time to cause a tragedy. Yet, we comment, duck, or howl when one rule is violated--its a layer that is removed. Similar for sweeping others with a slung rifle. Muzzle control is a fundamental safety rule. Violating it alone won't typically cause a tragedy. Yet, when that particular layer of safety is removed, it should be put back. The violator may not have the sense to be grateful it was pointed out to him, but it might just save a life.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Hell, if it's up to a vote, can we nominate some more candidates?

I think a poster could appropriately put up a poll for him/herself but not for another poster...I would not want to go down that road ... the board would have 100s of polls then.

 

[marshaul]

I didn't read all of this thread, nor the one linked in the OP.

But, based on what I gather, the LGOCer needs to improve his gun handling.

I can't really see requiring those nearby to first determine whether the bolt is locked back or the safety engaged before ducking. And, I can see a trigger snagged on clothes or something in the environment as a distinct possiblity. Combine that with a chambered round and a muzzle that is sweeping someone, and you've got the makings of tragedy.

The Four Rules are layers of safety. Often, it takes violating more than one at the same time to cause a tragedy. Yet, we comment, duck, or howl when one rule is violated--its a layer that is removed. Similar for sweeping others with a slung rifle. Muzzle control is a fundamental safety rule. Violating it alone won't typically cause a tragedy. Yet, when that particular layer of safety is removed, it should be put back. The violator may not have the sense to be grateful it was pointed out to him, but it might just save a life.

You anti!

 

[davidmcbeth]

You anti!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-Rqdgna3Yw


¡arriba! ¡arriba!

Now you're in the spirit !

 

[Grapeshot]

Hell, if it's up to a vote, can we nominate some more candidates?

..........:lol:.......:lol:

 

[JustaShooter]

This whole hubalooo is about the AR carried by a OCer in Wisconson. AND the 700 IS NOT a AR or a common rifle to open carry. It is a bullpoop comparison, because there is no evidence of OCers of long guns rifles magically discharging without the trigger being pulled.

Unless you can pull a case of a OCer with REMINGTON 700 who has had a ND... Otherwise it is a weak attempt to twist like a progressive anti gun zealot.

First it was an instance of a discharge by a long gun caused by a malfunction rather than a person pressing the trigger. Then an additional qualification was added that it must be the same type of long gun that exhibits a malfunction and discharges without someone pressing the trigger. Now another additional requirement is added, that it must be a case of an OCer carrying the same type of long gun that exhibits a malfunction and discharges without someone pressing the trigger.

And you call others "anti" - this is a classic, typical, liberal tactic to win or derail an argument.