A fine article on CCW and 2nd Amendment

[danez71]

I'm going to interject and play mod.

Both, Sam and Rx, have called the others comment ridiculous and absurd. It can be argued that the word is directed at the other's comment/idea, however, it can't be denied that since the thought is coming from a person, the ridiculous/absurd label spills over to the person from which the idea comes from.


Both of the following quotes are said by RX on pg 1

The long tern goal is 100% Constitutional Carry. The first step was CCLs in all states, the next was reciprocity and shall issue, then CC. If a large number of states skip to CC (which is great for them), the chances of full reciprocity and then CC is diminished.

I personally don't see where you've made the case that it IS diminished is a factual matter. It's speculation on your part. It's your opinion.

No. Just that doing things in the right order gets the mission accomplished. A ten cent worry is reasonable if you areplanning to get to $10 one dime at a time.

And here you've reinforced your position that doing it that way IS the RIGHT way. Again, it's speculation on your part.

RX can point to subsequent posts made after those above that used words like "may" or "could" etc but those 2 quotes were made one page 1 and set the tone.


I can see the logic that RX has made. It's speculation at this point but it could be right.

And there is certainly something to be said for doing step one before leap-frogging to step 4.

I personally don't agree with it in this case as being a sure thing best way to go... in fact, I think it probably isn't the best way to go in this case. But my opinion on what will work best doesn't diminish that there is logic behind it.


Addressing what i feel is an underlying sentiment of RX.....there is a certain amount of 'the opinion of the mods is what will prevail' here. I call it 'mobbed by mods'. The mob hasnt come out in this thread yet though.

However, I agree that RX comes across sometimes that if you disagree with him, it's because you don't understand and not the off chance that it's because his view is wrong or just a different opinion that is stated as a fact (which is how the 2 quotes of RX are written; opinions stated as facts).


ETA, I pressed the post button before I was finished.

As I see it, the 2 posts above by RX were worded as fact and they shouldn't have been as RX has subsequently used 'could' 'may' etc type words. Sam had been countering as if RX had stated them as facts and not opinions and they were a plan of action and not just 'the flip side is....'

And then 2 pages of insued.

 

[Sam1911]

I have real concerns about the ability of a hidebound and often anti-intellectual and anti-democratic group of people to effectively campaign for their own benefit when they are more invested in enforcing normative behavior than brainstorming and challenging assumptions.

Which would apply to every element of human endeavor from academia to stock car racing to 'gator wrasslin.' All can be hidebound, anti-intellectual (or at least prone to true intellectual blinkeredness), and definitely anti-democratic. As I said, pursued with well-thought-out, bounded, purpose, and with a good faith effort made to avoid contrarianism for mere sport, this is a positive element in our community.

However, as I asked before:

Anything else on the points of debate here? Or are we good with a simple "yup, there's a little bit of negative fallout possible, but proceed apace?"

 

[larryh1108]

A dialogue box will come up in the center of the page and Ignore is in the middle on the right side.

Thank you. You taught me something today.

 

[Frank Ettin]

More than enough.