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

[Ezerharden]

Since the Law was "May Issue", how a specific County practiced "May Issue" did not make them a "Shall Issue" County unless you have specific Legal References to such or you have Statistical/Citable Records showing such for License Applications Processed.

As TheQ siad, some counties were "Shall Issue" IN PRACTICE, not in legal standing.

 

[PDinDetroit]

No personal attack. DanM has said he's all about "no compromise" yet he supports shall issue and HB 5225(?). Rights were lost in both -- a compromise. Those are compromises he will accept though, so they are ok maybe?

Just stating facts.

No sir. You have made the same comment about DanM in multiple posts. It is a jab at him instead of factually discussing the issues.

 

[PDinDetroit]

"Shall issue" criminalized natural right open carry in Meijer, Kroger, and other places that sold alcohol, churches, theaters, sports arenas, day cares, hospitals, and banks. You don't see that taking away of natural open carry rights as the taking away of natural open carry rights? OCers could no longer carry in Meijer once "shall issue" was passed.

Those were all currently legal before "shall issue."

"Shall issue" by far harmed open carry rights much more than SB 59. It forced firearms owners to pay for classes, and it force firearms owners to pay for licenses (which expire every few years) just to carry a firearm in the grocery store.

Well said, but I don't think he is going to listen to logic on this one.

Well I was citing the fact that MI got Shall Issue by adding the COMPROMISE of the introduction of CC PFZ's. So a lot more people can more easily obtain a CPL thanks to compromise. But, compromise is unacceptable if it criminalizes the ability to carry. Such as criminalizing CC in an area where once it was allowed. Kind of like criminalizing OC in CC PFZ's to get the ability back to CC there. But that compromise is unacceptable.

While I agree that MI got Shall Issue by adding the COMPROMISE of the introduction of CC PFZ's, your "Well Said" post was is direct reference to a "natural right open carry" post. I believe that the other post is factually/legally incorrect which is why I asked if it was really "Well Said".

 

[TheQ]

No sir. You have made the same comment about DanM in multiple posts. It is a jab at him instead of factually discussing the issues.

Actually, I was discussing facts that he keeps trying to dispute. He has cognitive dissonance. He likes to call himself a "no compromise activist", yet it appears he is willing to compromise. Let's call a spade a spade. I don't have a problem with compromise, but apparently he does (except when he doesn't).

While I agree that MI got Shall Issue by adding the COMPROMISE of the introduction of CC PFZ's, your "Well Said" post was is direct reference to a "natural right open carry" post. I believe that the other post is factually/legally incorrect which is why I asked if it was really "Well Said".

Even you agree shall issue was a compromise of privileges that previously existed for many in the general public. DanM refuses to accept this simple fact.

But let's say (for the sake of discussion) it was a jab...

Funny...
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Registration&p=1882774&viewfull=1#post1882774

He...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Freedom-Act&p=1882771&viewfull=1#post1882771

...did the exact...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...5232-of-2009&p=1882775&viewfull=1#post1882775

...same thing...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...f-OC-is-BAD!&p=1882808&viewfull=1#post1882808

...all within a few hours.

At least I changed the words of my posts!

Don't you think his posts were jabs at the leadership of MOC?

While "MOC" isn't a personal and therefore not subject to "personal attacks". The members of the leadership (of which I am only one of many) ARE people and DanM seems to have no issue at REPEATEDLY jabbing them at every opportunity he gets over SB 59.

 

[PDinDetroit]

CC Ina PFZ was legal for people in shall issue counties prior to 2001. It became illegal with shall issue.

As TheQ siad, some counties were "Shall Issue" IN PRACTICE, not in legal standing.

TheQ did not state "IN PRACTICE". Words mean stuff.

 

[Ezerharden]

While I agree that MI got Shall Issue by adding the COMPROMISE of the introduction of CC PFZ's, your "Well Said" post was is direct reference to a "natural right open carry" post. I believe that the other post is factually/legally incorrect which is why I asked if it was really "Well Said".

Prior to Shall Issue you could OC in many areas that now you can only OC in with a CPL, i.e. anyplace with a liquor license, such as Meijer, Kroger, etc...

 

[TheQ]

TheQ did not state "IN PRACTICE". Words mean stuff.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...f-OC-is-BAD!&p=1884279&viewfull=1#post1884279

^^^ Actually, he did, in this post ^^^^

 

[Ezerharden]

There was no statute; however, many counties were "shall issue" in practice.

Osceola
Clinton
Monroe

...to name 3

TheQ did not state "IN PRACTICE". Words mean stuff.

Looks like ti says IN PRACTICE to me.

 

[PDinDetroit]

Actually, I was discussing facts that he keeps trying to dispute. He has cognitive dissonance. He likes to call himself a "no compromise activist", yet it appears he is willing to compromise. Let's call a spade a spade. I don't have a problem with compromise, but apparently he does (except when he doesn't).

Even you agree shall issue was a compromise of privileges that previously existed for many in the general public. DanM refuses to accept this simple fact.

But let's say (for the sake of discussion) it was a jab...

Funny...
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Registration&p=1882774&viewfull=1#post1882774

He...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Freedom-Act&p=1882771&viewfull=1#post1882771

...did the exact...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...5232-of-2009&p=1882775&viewfull=1#post1882775

...same thing...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...f-OC-is-BAD!&p=1882808&viewfull=1#post1882808

...all within a few hours.

At least I changed the words of my posts!

Don't you think his posts were jabs at the leadership of MOC?

While "MOC" isn't a personal and therefore not subject to "personal attacks". The members of the leadership (of which I am only one of many) ARE people and DanM seems to have no issue at REPEATEDLY jabbing them at every opportunity he gets over SB 59.

Do you really believe that taking jabs back at him will solve anything, other than letting go of some frustration? Do you really believe that making post after post about his statements/positions will solve anything? Did you think that being in MOC Leadership somehow exempts you from criticism (you should actually expect more)? Has DanM become the new Stainless somehow where multiple persons decide to gang up on him?

It still appears that we in the Firearm Rights Community have a long way to go in learning how to work together, especially at learning how to "Agree to Disagree"...

 

[TheQ]

TheQ did not state "IN PRACTICE". Words mean stuff.

And DanM's continuous attack against the leadership of MOC (again, who I am only one member of) means something too. If he doesn't like getting poked about his logical inconsistencies, he should stop poking others.

 

[TheQ]

Do you really believe that taking jabs back at him will solve anything, other than letting go of some frustration? Do you really believe that making post after post about his statements/positions will solve anything? Did you think that being in MOC Leadership somehow exempts you from criticism (you should actually expect more)? Has DanM become the new Stainless somehow where multiple persons decide to gang up on him?

It still appears that we in the Firearm Rights Community have a long way to go in learning how to work together, especially at learning how to "Agree to Disagree"...

He seems to think it will solve things with the leadership of MOC. He sure does it a lot. I was beginning to wonder if it actually works so I was giving it a try for myself.

I'm beginning to see it may not work. I wonder why he does it. Got any insight into his motives?

Got any insight as to why you chide me for the same behavior he exhibits but not him?

As to the last bolded statement, I agree. One way to NOT "agree to disagree" is to keep bringing up the past AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN .....

Such as DanM has

 

[PDinDetroit]

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...f-OC-is-BAD!&p=1884279&viewfull=1#post1884279

^^^ Actually, he did, in this post ^^^^

Not in post #83, which is what I referenced.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...f-OC-is-BAD!&p=1883862&viewfull=1#post1883862

 

[PDinDetroit]

Looks like ti says IN PRACTICE to me.

Not in post #83, which is what I referenced.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...f-OC-is-BAD!&p=1883862&viewfull=1#post1883862

 

[Ezerharden]

Actually DanM has consistently jabbed at MOC over SB59, which is dead atm by the way. Even the title of this thread is confrontational.

 

[TheQ]

actually danm has consistently jabbed at moc over sb59, which is dead atm by the way. even the title of this thread is confrontational.

qft!

He took 4 such jabs in the period of an hour. 3 of said jabs WERE THE EXACT SAME TEXT -- DUPLICATE POSTS!

Isn't there a rule against duplicate posts? There should be....there is on MGO.

 

[PDinDetroit]

Prior to Shall Issue you could OC in many areas that now you can only OC in with a CPL, i.e. anyplace with a liquor license, such as Meijer, Kroger, etc...

Really?

Can you explain how "Shall Issue" for CPL Holders affected OC for Non-CPL Holders given that the Non-CPL Holders PFZ Enumeration contained within MCL 750.234d was not changed after 1994? It truly appears that OC for Non-CPL Holders has been banned in these areas for longer than we have had "Shall Issue" for CPLs.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-234d

 

[PDinDetroit]

And DanM's continuous attack against the leadership of MOC (again, who I am only one member of) means something too. If he doesn't like getting poked about his logical inconsistencies, he should stop poking others.

You do know that there is a simpler solution that the one you have undertaken? You could simply report his Thread/Post as a Violation of OCDO Forum Rules:

(12) NO BASHING OF OTHER GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS: Regardless of how convinced you are that another gun rights organization is not doing their job, this is not the place to air those concerns unless they are specifically related to an anti-open carry position taken by that organization. All other rants against other gun rights groups will be deleted or the thread locked.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

However, it could very well be construed that MOC's Position of Support for SB 59 was that of anti-open carry given the bill specifically forbade Open Carry in MI PFZ's contained with MCL 28.425o, so the Thread/Posts might not have been deleted/locked.

I believe you and MOC would best be served by less poking and thereby keeping the controversy going when it would likely die much sooner not being fed....

 

[TheQ]

I believe you and MOC would best be served by less poking and thereby keeping the controversy going when it would likely die much sooner not being fed....

Tried that -- I placed a self-imposed ban on OCDO for 2 weeks, mostly because it was (at that time) a cesspool of hate. What would be your suggestion to stop DanM's constant jabs? Maybe you could speak to him about it?


It's looking like it's time to repeat my previous action. I see little value in posting here:

1. MOC's Forum has a much higher posting count these days.
2. We don't see nearly as much in-fighting BS over there.

HB 5225 could have been said to be "anti-OC". Did DanM support it....hmmmm?

 

[PDinDetroit]

qft!

He took 4 such jabs in the period of an hour. 3 of said jabs WERE THE EXACT SAME TEXT -- DUPLICATE POSTS!

Isn't there a rule against duplicate posts? There should be....there is on MGO.

You can always request/recommend a Forum Rules Change. I did so and helped with the wording of the following Forum Rule:

(17) OWNERSHIP OF POSTS: By posting on the OpenCarry.org forum, you do not surrender your ownership rights to the material you post. However, by posting any material which you possess ownership rights to on the forum, you grant an irrevocable, transferable license to the forum owners to display, edit, delete and reproduce the material as they see fit.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

Like I have said, I believe you are better than this to continue poking someone. Choose to rise above the fray!

 

[Ezerharden]

You do know that there is a simpler solution that the one you have undertaken? You could simply report his Thread/Post as a Violation of OCDO Forum Rules:

(12) NO BASHING OF OTHER GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS: Regardless of how convinced you are that another gun rights organization is not doing their job, this is not the place to air those concerns unless they are specifically related to an anti-open carry position taken by that organization. All other rants against other gun rights groups will be deleted or the thread locked.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

However, it could very well be construed that MOC's Position of Support for SB 59 was that of anti-open carry given the bill specifically forbade Open Carry in MI PFZ's contained with MCL 28.425o, so the Thread/Posts might not have been deleted/locked.

I believe you and MOC would best be served by less poking and thereby keeping the controversy going when it would likely die much sooner not being fed....

Perhaps, however these blatant veiled attacks against MOC regarding SB59 should have died when the bill did. Instead, DanM has posted the same thing on all three bills announced here, one of which is regarding keeping peoples information private to avoid what happened in NY with the names and addresses being published. Now let me ask you, how in the hell would OC be used as a compromise in keeping information private? It was a blatant jab at MOC again. And if nothing is started, there is nothing to be fed. DanM threw the first punches here, sorry if you don't like that he is getting his licks in return.