



Who says it was a sudden need? All I see in any surge in CHL permits is people waking up to taking responsibility for their own protection, and their right to exercise their freedom lawfully with respect to others. And calling the NRA a terrorist organization.... I don't see any organization that encourages and supports constitutional rights as a terrorist organization, sounds like an ad hominem argument to me.kepPNW wrote:One mark of that change was the "sudden need" to carry guns, in particular concealed guns.
(underscore emphasis mine) +1 Crusak. and here is a random blog article supporting your confiscation concerns: http://www.level-headed.net/2013/05/gun ... n-america/. The efforts to blame the guns for the crime is scary to me because it removes the focus on the criminal. There will always be crime, there will always be a world with violence and these people want to restrict the law abiding, it doesn't make sense?Crusak wrote: Some of the statements from people like the mayor of NYC and the police chief of San Diego have alarmed me very greatly! Both of those men want to see 100% gun confiscation within our generation, and they've both declared that it will happen. ......... What alarms me more is the strong efforts being made to teach the next generation that guns are bad and must be eliminated from society.
Prior to 1980, only five states permitted concealed carry. In a few short years after that, forty-four more passed authorizing legislation. That's pretty sudden, in the long haul.Koda wrote:kepPNW wrote:One mark of that change was the "sudden need" to carry guns, in particular concealed guns.
Who says it was a sudden need?
That's all? Really? How did people possibly manage for the 200 years before that? Must've been something else that changed?Koda wrote:All I see in any surge in CHL permits is people waking up to taking responsibility for their own protection, and their right to exercise their freedom lawfully with respect to others.
I don't pay that much attention to them, to be sure. Every time I do hear them making a statement, though, it sure seems to me their main intent is to scare people. Isn't that root meaning of terrorist? (Consider that rhetorical, given what I'm about to offer.)Koda wrote:And calling the NRA a terrorist organization.... I don't see any organization that encourages and supports constitutional rights as a terrorist organization, sounds like an ad hominem argument to me.![]()
In those 200 years the right to open carry a gun has been mostly eliminated. I think any surge in CHL permits has a regard to respecting others out in public especially in urban environments. Also I don't think any surge in CHL's as a point in time where society's outlook changed, America has always had a large gun culture from the beginning.kepPNW wrote:That's all? Really? How did people possibly manage for the 200 years before that? Must've been something else that changed?Koda wrote:All I see in any surge in CHL permits is people waking up to taking responsibility for their own protection, and their right to exercise their freedom lawfully with respect to others.
Its been a fun and educating debate, I dont see a need to explain what I meant if its going to wind down or close... besides, I think we argued that already.My sense is there's very little to gain by continuing on in this thread... I am curious whether you meant "rights" in the plural sense, though. Last word, yours.
Whats with all the commas? Are those dependent clauses? I just want to make certain we capture the literal meaning, and not the intent!Will, I'd love to go hiking with you, too, sometime!
Actually, I owe you better than I managed. I thought it was pretty clear from my posts here that I don't believe guns are the problem with our society. I believe the real problem is macho bullshit posturing. My friends here aren't inclined that way, of course, but I know damn well that all too frequently ASCII words don't come across the same as they do in person. If anything else I've posted here isn't clear, and you're really interested, let's talk. (Assuming the goal of mutual understanding's not too effeminate?) I think that at this point, I'd prefer to do that on the trail. I see no good reason to continue the direction you're wanting to take this online. Could be I'm just misunderstanding you? <shrug> Either way, it's a waste of Internet ink to keep it up. Hopefully that clears up my other snippy one sentence reply.nwtrailape wrote:I'm curious Karl, why are you so afraid that you might hurt someones feelings? Can you not stand up for what you believe in, like a man?
Koda wrote:Whats with all the commas? Are those dependent clauses? I just want to make certain we capture the literal meaning, and not the intent!