Told you so: agreeing to any criminalization of OC is BAD!

[Ezerharden]

I addressed that (bolded for emphasis):



I reiterate that it is a fair characterization to say, before shall-issue, CC and CC in PFZ's were not among the gun rights available to the general population of Michigan. So, what shall-issue represented was a reduction of the PFZ from the whole state to a few areas for the whole of the law-abiding citizenry of Michigan.

I say again that shall-issue was a pure ADVANCE, with no compromise of generally available gun rights at the time, for the general citizenry.

But according to you NO compromise is acceptable, no matter what size. Yet you support and welcome Shall issue that was obtained via compromise regardless of how large or small it was, it was still a compromise. But then it was likely a compromise that didn't affect you negatively, which is why you don't want to acknowledge it. You said that Shall issue was an advance for the general population, well so was SB 59 since there are a lot more CC'rs than OC'rs. But again, Shall issue didn't affect you so that compromise was ok, for the advance of others. I guess your idea of compromise is really making sure waht you want is done, regardless of what others may think, even if they are the majority.

 

[TheQ]

But according to you NO compromise is acceptable, no matter what size. Yet you support and welcome Shall issue that was obtained via compromise regardless of how large or small it was, it was still a compromise. But then it was likely a compromise that didn't affect you negatively, which is why you don't want to acknowledge it. You said that Shall issue was an advance for the general population, well so was SB 59 since there are a lot more CC'rs than OC'rs. But again, Shall issue didn't affect you so that compromise was ok, for the advance of others. I guess your idea of compromise is really making sure waht you want is done, regardless of what others may think, even if they are the majority or minority.

FIFY. He's been caught in a logical inconsistency. Right now he's experiencing cognitive dissonance. Lets key it bake in his mind for a while. If he keeps harping "no compromise" in a couple days we'll once again remind him of his logical failings.

 

[Ezerharden]

Sounds like a plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DanM]

You accused MOC of throwing the minority of gun owners (OC) "under the bus" for better CPL laws. Didn't passing Shall Issue, which benefited the majority throw the minority at the time (prior CPL holders) under the bus?

OC in PFZ's is a right that is available to be exercised by the Michigan citizenry without discretionary interference by the government. A minority exercise it, but it is a right currently held by all law-abiding Michigan citizens.

CC in PFZ's was never a right available to be exercised by the Michigan citizenry without discretionary interference by the government. A minority exercised it because only a minority could obtain this non-right.

Big difference that I've tried to illustrate in prior posts, and reiterate again.

 

[TheQ]

Actually, I'd maintain CC is a right, one that has been stolen. In 2001 it was stolen more.

 

[DanM]

What kind if gun owners are they -- so willing to compromise away YOUR rights for theirs...*sighs*.

I reiterate what I wrote above: CC in PFZ's during may-issue was not a gun right available to the general Michigan law-abiding citizenry.

 

[TheQ]

I reiterate what I wrote above: CC in PFZ's during may-issue was not a gun right available to the general Michigan law-abiding citizenry.

Tell that to the people of Clinton, Monroe, and Osceola (and several other) counties.

 

[Ezerharden]

OC in PFZ's With a CPL is a right that is available to be exercised by the Michigan citizenry. A minority exercise it, but it is a right currently held by all law-abiding Michigan citizens that have a CPL.

CC in PFZ's without a CPL was never a right available to be exercised by the Michigan citizenry without a CPL. A minority exercised it because only a minority could obtain this non-right.

Big difference that I've tried to illustrate in prior posts, and reiterate again.

There fixed it up for you so it is actually accurate information. Hope you don't mind the corrections to make sure you are disseminating information that is legally sound. See it keeps coming back to the CPL that was required then under May issue and is required now under Shall Issue, except under May issue you could CC in the PFZ's, now you cant.

 

[DanM]

Since the general citizenry doesn't OC you could then categorize SB 59 as an advance with no compromise.

Do you think shall issue was worth losing CC in PFZs and requiring people who already had unrestricted permits to take training in order to LOSE rights?

OC in PFZ's is a right available to all law-abiding Michigan citizens.

CC in PFZ's was never a right, because it was not available to all law-abiding Michigan citizens.

Thus, shall-issue was not a compromise of a "right" to CC in PFZs, because that "right" never existed in the first place.

 

[TheQ]

You can't explain away cognitive dissonance...

 

[Ezerharden]

OC in PFZ's is a right available to all law-abiding Michigan citizens with a CPL.

CC in PFZ's was never a right, because it was not available to all law-abiding Michigan citizens without a CPL.

Thus, shall-issue was not a compromise of a "right" to CC in PFZs, because that "right" never existed in the first place unless you had a CPL under the May Issue system.

You keep forgetting that a CPL is required or was required.

 

[Ezerharden]

You can't explain away cognitive dissonance...

Beginning to agree here.

 

[TheQ]

You keep forgetting that a CPL is required or was required.

You mean the state wide shall issue CPL that came at the compromise if the rights if people of certain counties?

 

[Ezerharden]

You mean the state wide shall issue CPL that came at the compromise if the rights if people of certain counties?

Yep, that would be the one.

 

[TheQ]

Felons can't get a CPL right now so maybe our current shall issue isn't available to the "general public"?

What percent of what population do we need in order to call it "general public@, DanM?

 

[DanM]

There fixed it up for you so it is actually accurate information. Hope you don't mind the corrections to make sure you are disseminating information that is legally sound.

That's why I used the word "available". "Available" means you have the right if you are not a violent criminal or insane, which the CPL process is the state's vetting mechanism to exclude those undesirables from OC'ing in PFZ's and CC'ing in non-PFZ's. You didn't fix anything, you just didn't understand I was abbreviating all that to "available".

See it keeps coming back to the CPL that was required then under May issue and is required now under Shall Issue, except under May issue you could CC in the PFZ's, now you cant.

Again, CC during may-issue was never a right, thus CC in PFZ's was never a right. A "right" that was never really a right cannot be a right that was compromised. No matter how many times you try to say it.

 

[TheQ]

DanM:

You have exactly 2 ways out if this cognitive trap:

1. Accept that compromise when *gaining* rights is ok.
2. Denounce 2001 "shall issue".

Choose.

 

[Ezerharden]

Again, CC during may-issue was never a right, thus CC in PFZ's was never a right. A "right" that was never really a right cannot be a right that was compromised. No matter how many times you try to say it.

Please explain how it was not a right? Because you needed a CPL to do it? Just like now you need a CPL to OC in a PFZ?

 

[TheQ]

Again, CC during may-issue was never a right, thus CC in PFZ's was never a right. A "right" that was never really a right cannot be a right that was compromised. No matter how many times you try to say it.

So you must agree OC isn't a right. I'd say rights are universal and exist everywhere.

Yet we find that OC isn't allowed in NY.

I say OC and CC are BOTH rights. Both are being held hostage by the government, in different ways.

 

[TheQ]

please explain how it was not a right? Because you needed a cpl to do it? Just like now you need a cpl to oc in a pfz?

qft