Thank you! lol
[/QUOTE]BTW, putting 'A constitutional right' in quotation marks says more about your position than pretty much everything else you've written. I think we all get where you're coming from.
[/QUOTE]Please share with all what i meant by putting 'A constitutional right' in quotation marks. You are implying it means something.
I put 'A constitutional right' in quotation marks for punctuation - that is it. I first wrote the sentence with the word right but did not think it was clear so I added more clarity to the grammer.
But please, you jumped out there, go ahead and tell all what my position is on constitutional rights. You said you knew. I really don't know how you know from putting the words in quotation marks but give it a stab.
There is always someone that wants to turn a good topic and a good converstion into name calling. Could that tell something about you?
I was confused by this as well.
Dont they come in pairs usually?I have a question. What does tedious look like?
BTW, putting 'A constitutional right' in quotation marks says more about your position than pretty much everything else you've written. I think we all get where you're coming from.
[/QUOTE]Please share with all what i meant by putting 'A constitutional right' in quotation marks. You are implying it means something.
I put 'A constitutional right' in quotation marks for punctuation - that is it. I first wrote the sentence with the word right but did not think it was clear so I added more clarity to the grammer.
But please, you jumped out there, go ahead and tell all what my position is on constitutional rights. You said you knew. I really don't know how you know from putting the words in quotation marks but give it a stab.
There is always someone that wants to turn a good topic and a good converstion into name calling. Could that tell something about you?[/QUOTE]
So your excuse is that you don't English Composition much?
FWIW, you didn't clarify anything, you muddied your own position. I therefore retract my statement, based on a misleading statement that was either intentional or unintentional on your part. I'm not sure at this point.
BTW, nice deflection on the volunteerism!
My question towards Henshman was rhetorical. Unlike most people, I don't anthropomorphize something that only exists in the mind. That people in power use the fiction to dictate behavior for their benefit still does not equate to "it" being real. I understand the concept of government under the guise of a monarch or dictator. But this so called "government of the people" is nothing but an illusion of our collective minds being in agreement to call something that isn't real as being real.
I've actually kept my comments simple for people to understand. Sorry that they are above you. As for "reality", I contend that people who view an intangible "entity" as being real are not living in reality.
The reality is that government is a fiction. That is the reality. Just because you and most others suffer from cognitive dissonance and are unwilling to unlearn the myth taught throughout their lives doesn't change the reality that government is a paper fiction. As much as a paper fiction as a corporation that comes to be only by virtue of men putting onto paper a concept and then asking others to accept that fiction as reality. The process of learning often requires unlearning. For example, once people believed the world to be flat. When the facts proved otherwise, people had to unlearn the information they held in order to understand the reality. Those who maintained that the world was flat in spite of the facts suffer cognitive dissonance. Those who maintain that government is real in spite of the facts suffer cognitive dissonance.
They live in Plato's Cave.
BTW, putting 'A constitutional right' in quotation marks says more about your position than pretty much everything else you've written. I think we all get where you're coming from.
Please share with all what i meant by putting 'A constitutional right' in quotation marks. You are implying it means something.
I put 'A constitutional right' in quotation marks for punctuation - that is it. I first wrote the sentence with the word right but did not think it was clear so I added more clarity to the grammer.
But please, you jumped out there, go ahead and tell all what my position is on constitutional rights. You said you knew. I really don't know how you know from putting the words in quotation marks but give it a stab.
There is always someone that wants to turn a good topic and a good converstion into name calling. Could that tell something about you?[/QUOTE]
So your excuse is that you don't English Composition much?
FWIW, you didn't clarify anything, you muddied your own position. I therefore retract my statement, based on a misleading statement that was either intentional or unintentional on your part. I'm not sure at this point.
BTW, nice deflection on the volunteerism!
[/QUOTE]'-------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
So your excuse is that you don't English Composition much?
I did not offer an excuse, I told you why I used quotation marks.
I therefore retract my statement, based on a misleading statement that was either intentional or unintentional on your part. I'm not sure at this point.
I don't think many were mislead except you. And I was right, you made a bold and conscending statement that when put on the spot you could not back up.
BTW, nice deflection on the volunteerism!
I did not deflect volunteerism. I choose training as a full time career. It does not pay much but I enjoy working with people and training and teaching. They leave with more information to make good decision regarding self defense and the use and purchase of guns whether for self defense, competition, or pleasure. Is there something wrong with this? Do you not get paid for you full time occupation?
Regarding volunteerism - yes I volunteer for free. i did not choose to deflect but not add to the post. Whether your volunteerism if greater in importance than mine i do not know or care to know, how to you judge such a thing? But believe me when I tell you I have spend many hours and plan to continue to spend hours helping people.
I instruct for a fee to have income.
I also intruct for free because sometimes charging is not appropriate IMO.
You seem to think you know an awful lot about me just from my writings. Have we ever met?
So to state my opinion clearly again - I believe the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to be armed for self defense but I would like to see state required training before a person recieves their license. I belive in being practical especially after working with the untrained that a min amount of required training is a good thing. I do not believe EVERYONE should recieve a license just because they asked for one.
We expect our:
1. airplane pilots to be trained.
2. your bank teller to be trained
3. you a/c man to be trained
4. your police to be trained.
5. your county sheriffs to be trained.
6. your insurance man to be trained.
7. truck drivers to be trained.
8. your doctors to be trained.
9 your dentists to be trained.
and so on.
Are you stating that you want a person to be issued a handgun license without any required trainng?
Respectifully, unless you have taught the OK Handgun License class for many years, then I do not think you have seen the actions and attitudes of the untrained.
My opinion comes from my observations.
If your loved one is needlessly and carelessly killed by an untrained person, and while you are standing at the grave realize that you daughter's or son's life could have been spared if that person had been required to take a 7 hour course, then I feel you would opt to say you wished he had taken the training.
I'm done.
Last edited:
You seem fixated on the notion that without a bunch of SDA instructors running around waiving our magic CLEET wands, somehow the whole state and, more specifically, its chirren are somehow in mortal peril from a bunch of mouth breathers. That's foolish and shortsighted at best. The 7-hours of instruction isn't going to make up for someone's piss poor marksmanship that might cause said bystander to die. Leave little Susie and Jimmie out of it. The "class" is to familiarize with the concepts of safe handling and the law, as well as to demonstrate that someone can make a gun go "bang" 50 times without shooting themselves, their fellow students or us. It is not intended to, nor will it ever, replicate nor replace real firearms training. That's the class. If you're including some kind of instruction above and beyond what CLEET has mandated under their statutory requirement (as so many are want to point out in their defense of keeping the class as a requirement to carry) then guess what? That's not the class. That's something you've added to the CLEET mandated minimum level of instruction and you're not going to fit both into a single day and have any tangible effect toward saving Susie or Jimmie. You can teach that content without there being a mandated course of instruction and because people want to take the class, not because they're checking a box.
That's probably best.
Last edited:
So your excuse is that you don't English Composition much?
FWIW, you didn't clarify anything, you muddied your own position. I therefore retract my statement, based on a misleading statement that was either intentional or unintentional on your part. I'm not sure at this point.
BTW, nice deflection on the volunteerism!
[/QUOTE]'-------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
So your excuse is that you don't English Composition much?
I did not offer an excuse, I told you why I used quotation marks.
I therefore retract my statement, based on a misleading statement that was either intentional or unintentional on your part. I'm not sure at this point.
I don't think many were mislead except you. And I was right, you made a bold and conscending statement that when put on the spot you could not back up.
BTW, nice deflection on the volunteerism!
I did not deflect volunteerism. I choose training as a full time career. It does not pay much but I enjoy working with people and training and teaching. They leave with more information to make good decision regarding self defense and the use and purchase of guns whether for self defense, competition, or pleasure. Is there something wrong with this? Do you not get paid for you full time occupation?
Regarding volunteerism - yes I volunteer for free. i did not choose to deflect but not add to the post. Whether your volunteerism if greater in importance than mine i do not know or care to know, how to you judge such a thing? But believe me when I tell you I have spend many hours and plan to continue to spend hours helping people.
I instruct for a fee to have income.
I also intruct for free because sometimes charging is not appropriate IMO.
You seem to think you know an awful lot about me just from my writings. Have we ever met?
So to state my opinion clearly again - I believe the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to be armed for self defense but I would like to see state required training before a person recieves their license. I belive in being practical especially after working with the untrained that a min amount of required training is a good thing. I do not believe EVERYONE should recieve a license just because they asked for one.
We expect our:
1. airplane pilots to be trained.
2. your bank teller to be trained
3. you a/c man to be trained
4. your police to be trained.
5. your county sheriffs to be trained.
6. your insurance man to be trained.
7. truck drivers to be trained.
8. your doctors to be trained.
9 your dentists to be trained.
and so on.
Are you stating that you want a person to be issued a handgun license without any required trainng?
Respectifully, unless you have taught the OK Handgun License class for many years, then I do not think you have seen the actions and attitudes of the untrained.
My opinion comes from my observations.
If your loved one is needlessly and carelessly killed by an untrained person, and while you are standing at the grave realize that you daughter's or son's life could have been spared if that person had been required to take a 7 hour course, then I feel you would opt to say you wished he had taken the training.
I'm done.[/QUOTE]
How many times have you volunteered to teach free gun safety classes? Someone who is of the opinion you are should be doing this weekly, and for free.
No, you dumbass, we're saying that there shouldn't be a license, period. That's what "right" means--same as you don't have to get a speech license or a religion license.
Damn, some people are thick.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
