A direct quote from their representative (during an official interview) arguing against the proposed change, is them on record being against it.
posted via Tapatalk
They aren't arguing against the proposed change...it was never mentioned by Wilshire. They simply stated it's recommended to have training. Those are drastically different positions.
If he had meant "recommend," don't you think he would have said it? Instead he chose to use "need," which implies no option.
You can interpret it that way if you want. I certainly do not. There are many different ways to use the word "need", and often it doesn't equate to "require". I certainly won't lose any sleep over interpretation of that one word in the grand scheme of this situation.
I agree that people "need" training, but it shouldn't be "required". Do you disagree?
Before I agree or disagree I'll need to know what you mean by "need," if not the dictionary definition.
If you can't interpret what I mean by "need", how can you accurately interpret what the Wilshire Guns guy meant?
I took him for using the exact verb he wanted/meant to, but you suggest that "There are many different ways to use the word 'need', and often it doesn't equate to 'require.'"
Or to put it another wayIn this case it means the exact opposite of the accepted definition, (requirement/no requirement)
I'm not the one arguing that "need," Has other" so what did you mean by "need?"
Are we allowed to just make up new definitions of words whenever we want? If so, then this conversation has gotten very "peppercorn."
So, we're only allowed to use official dictionary definitions of words and their meanings now? Yes, that would be "corny".
Similar threads
