What I see is that the hard liners will have a sisyphean task convincing the majority of gun owners on this "no mandatory training" position. I wish I could say "good luck", but I don't agree with you.
Ideologically, you have a firm hand on the tiller of the 2A (at least in your mind), yet you concede to authority and file 4473's on purchases and pay the state, fingerprint yourself, etc to obtain your LTCH.
I wonder how you've navigated hypocrisy to get to where you are……..
So your idea of a counterpoint on my end is an argument you think you can defeat? When faced with a counterpoint that you have no response to, it's a shin kick? IOW, someone call the whaaaaaambulance because 88GT isn't letting you get away with the inane logic you've attempted to use, so you're going to accuse her of not playing by a certain set of rules.88GT: I attempted to respond to you on your slavery example with Dred Scott/13thA & 14thA, and Plessy v Ferguson/Brown v Bd of Educ. You slammed that response and I felt further dialogue was fruitless. I leave that as your issue, not mine. Point/Counterpoint is the way things should go. Not Point/Shin Kick.
Passive aggressive. I am not surprised.I wish all of you well with your laws and I hope that no one in Indiana is left with the guilt of a bad shoot. Lord knows there are too many because people who refuse to own the responsibility that comes with the 2A.
Says the subject to the citizens. I hope your chains rest easy.Ideologically, you have a firm hand on the tiller of the 2A (at least in your mind), yet you concede to authority and file 4473's on purchases and pay the state, fingerprint yourself, etc to obtain your LTCH.
I wonder how you've navigated hypocrisy to get to where you are……..
I recognize that you are tilting at windmills.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
I did smoke, I quit because it was not good for me. I get sick from the smell now. I would not eat at some restaurants that didn't have good ventilation.
It frosts me that laws forbidding property owners from allowing their customers to smoke if they like. Now short shanks is wanting to outlaw e cigarettes in the same way.
Personally I wish that all smokers would quit.
I wish all gun enthusiasts would get the best training they are able.
That said, I am not a statist. I may start calling myself a minarchist. Thanks Bill.
Ideologically, you have a firm hand on the tiller of the 2A (at least in your mind), yet you concede to authority and file 4473's on purchases and pay the state, fingerprint yourself, etc to obtain your LTCH.
I wonder how you've navigated hypocrisy to get to where you are……..
Your premise of a binary solution set is incorrect. Do I obey the laws as written? Yes, while working to change them. See, while I do "submit" to them, I do not "concede" to the laws.Ideologically, you have a firm hand on the tiller of the 2A (at least in your mind), yet you concede to authority and file 4473's on purchases and pay the state, fingerprint yourself, etc to obtain your LTCH.
I wonder how you've navigated hypocrisy to get to where you are……..
Hyperbole and hypocrisy. Does that really work here in Indiana? Disagree with you and I'm no longer qualified to be a citizen?
I find your comments offensive.
Your premise of a binary solution set is incorrect. Do I obey the laws as written? Yes, while working to change them. See, while I do "submit" to them, I do not "concede" to the laws.
Concede:
1. to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit, often grudgingly: He finally conceded that she was right.2. to acknowledge (an opponent's victory, score, etc.) before it is officially established: to concede an election.
3. to grant as a right or privilege; yield.
v.i.
4. to make concession; yield; admit.
Not exactly. My point is that you apparently do not understand the difference between a citizen of a free republic and a subjective of a statist government. You are rightfully a free citizen by birth, you just don't appear to understand the nature of it.
As for dropping the 'offensive' card, I, for one, do not consider that to be the argument-stopper it is in more left-leaning circles. I find it offensive that people like you are willing not only to give up rights in exchange for nothing, but that you have reached the point of, at least to a noticeable extent, denying that such rights exist in spite of being plainly stated, and that you are willing to accept the notion of our system of government defaulting to a nine-person oligarchy regardless of the actual text of the Constitution. I find this extremely offensive for those who worry about offensiveness.
The terms are synonyms. You are splitting the atom here.
Your premise of a binary solution set is incorrect. Do I obey the laws as written? Yes, while working to change them. See, while I do "submit" to them, I do not "concede" to the laws.
What you fail to recognize is that this is a democratic republic and that the Constitution is a living document. You are a reactionary, sir.