If they are fence-sitters...let's help them away from the Dark Side.
No need to help them see the light, just help them out the door in November.
Politicians are there to represent us, instead of their own self interest.
SAF SUES IN MARYLAND OVER HANDGUN PERMIT DENIAL UPDATED 3-5-12
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
No need to help them see the light, just help them out the door in November.
Politicians are there to represent us, instead of their own self interest.
yellowsled
Retired C&R Addict
didnt see this posted yet..
http://www.foxbaltimore.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wbff_vid_4734.shtml
http://www.foxbaltimore.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wbff_vid_4734.shtml
That is an interesting story. I don't know why somany libtarded thinkers believe that ccw causes more violence. Florida and Va show this has not been the case at all.
Because most don't own guns, are afraid of guns, and therefore, don't want anyone else to own one. When you watch the video, the female legislator starts her sentence with "I think", ergo the problem. She is applying her personal opinions and beliefs. Mr. Woollard, however, says that if you have a clean record... in essence, practically quotes the Second Amendment of the United States. That is not personal opinion, but upholding the law that is meant for the good of ALL. Since the legislator is in a position to do so, she gets to impart her personal opinoin, rather than upholding the law. It is for this reason, it is being forced into the courts, and will most likely wind up in the Supreme Court, only because it has now become an issue of the liberally minded ego!
gamer_jim
Podcaster
WTF! "[she] would rather see stricter laws pertaining to the use of illegal handguns..."
Who's the lady in the interview? Please tell me she's not an elected official. If she is the Baltimore City is getting everything it deserves.
I'm not sure that more guns means less crime. What I do know is I, as an individual, should have the right to protected myself wherever I am.
NY Transplant
Wabbit Season/Duck Season
She is a Delegate, I don't recall which district.
- May 22, 2005
- 122,883
yellowfin
Pro 2A Gastronome
Here's the problem though: WE ALL get her too, and WE don't deserve that. That's the major problem I have with the whole thing, being affected by anti gun politicians and voters with whom I otherwise have no interaction whatsoever but they can still make problems for me. Either they make laws that affect places I travel through or people move from places with their laws try to make those laws apply to where I am locally or nationally via the federal government. They won't leave us alone and keep their problems to themselves.
ToneGrail
MSI, NRA, & SAF Member
I wonder which percentage of antis actually support these onerous gun laws because they believe that their constituents might get shot by their intended victims while "redistributing wealth at gunpoint" as opposed to those who genuinely think that gun control works.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
In their minds "more guns means more gun problems" makes sense. The problem we face is that it also makes sense to many others as well. If you focus on the object (guns), instead of the person doing the harm, gun control makes intellectual sense.
Of course, that whole philosophy is bedded in a failed theory - that an object is capable of self animation and will then attack by virtue of it's mere existence. The alternative theory is that the introduction of arms will cause people to become violent. That violence is an expression of opportunity rather than vice.
Scary to me is the second theory. It implies a good number of people fear not their neighbor - instead they fear themselves. They don't want guns readily available because they know what they would do with one in anger or stress. The know they lack discipline and assume everyone else shares the same fault.
Of course, that whole philosophy is bedded in a failed theory - that an object is capable of self animation and will then attack by virtue of it's mere existence. The alternative theory is that the introduction of arms will cause people to become violent. That violence is an expression of opportunity rather than vice.
Scary to me is the second theory. It implies a good number of people fear not their neighbor - instead they fear themselves. They don't want guns readily available because they know what they would do with one in anger or stress. The know they lack discipline and assume everyone else shares the same fault.
DUDE - YOU JUST DEFINED LIBERALISM!!! Everytime a liberal opposes something, they first impart "what they would do". It's the same thing they do when they criticize, "You can't own a broom, it might get inserted in your..." BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD DO WITH IT!!!
hairba111
XGMG2
Excellent conclusion Patrick, I like it, short and to the point. May I quote you on this?
"the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user." - Colonel Jeff Cooper
Hoplophobia - the fear of weapons (guns).
Hoplophobia - the fear of weapons (guns).
All of the ones in PG and DC.
I saw a great example of this the other day on the facebook page Norton linked to. A guy discussing CC in MD said he didn't agree with it, he kept his guns at home and would never carry one in public BECAUSE he knew what he might do with it if someone cut him off in traffic.
I couldn't believe it..
Ethan83
Ultimate Member
DING DING DING!
I have been formulating this theory for a while now, and I'm more convinced than ever that 'liberalism' is in fact a psychological deficiency in which individuals are incapable of maturing and thus suffer from massive projection of their deficiencies.
Why do they condemn the tea parties for being racist? Because they know that deep down inside they're racist themselves, and can't believe that anyone else wouldn't be. These accusations towards tea parties have been thoroughly demonstrated to be completely false, whereas day after day we're seeing the racist underbelly of progressives, both black and white, revealed more and more.
What about the violence? No tea partier has engaged in any violence, whereas SEIU thugs have been repeatedly assaulting people, not to mention all the leftist protests where riot police inevitably have to take over.
And Patrick's right on the money with the guns - they don't believe people should have guns because they don't believe they should have guns. They know that they aren't mature enough to handle them safely and not abuse the power they could potentially wield, and thus, project these deficiencies onto others.
Calling right-wingers "greedy"? Yup, you guessed it - look at the levels of private charity donated by Republicans and then charity donated by Democrats.
Immaturity and psychological projection really is the unifying theory of liberalism.
I have been formulating this theory for a while now, and I'm more convinced than ever that 'liberalism' is in fact a psychological deficiency in which individuals are incapable of maturing and thus suffer from massive projection of their deficiencies.
Why do they condemn the tea parties for being racist? Because they know that deep down inside they're racist themselves, and can't believe that anyone else wouldn't be. These accusations towards tea parties have been thoroughly demonstrated to be completely false, whereas day after day we're seeing the racist underbelly of progressives, both black and white, revealed more and more.
What about the violence? No tea partier has engaged in any violence, whereas SEIU thugs have been repeatedly assaulting people, not to mention all the leftist protests where riot police inevitably have to take over.
And Patrick's right on the money with the guns - they don't believe people should have guns because they don't believe they should have guns. They know that they aren't mature enough to handle them safely and not abuse the power they could potentially wield, and thus, project these deficiencies onto others.
Calling right-wingers "greedy"? Yup, you guessed it - look at the levels of private charity donated by Republicans and then charity donated by Democrats.
Immaturity and psychological projection really is the unifying theory of liberalism.
Patrick
MSI Executive Member
I am flattered. Quote at will. Thank you.
Rattlesnake46319
Curmidget
The hell of it is, a person tends to be more mindful of their temper when they're carrying. I've had the same scenario happen to me while carrying in Indiana. I'll admit, I used a few choice words, but it never crossed my mind to threaten the guy with my firearm. It's a tool for defense, not anger.
Sounds like we have come to a conclusion on defining the problem. Now how do we go about solving it? Perhaps we should invite, each one, a liberal friend to the range and teach them how to shoot? Enroll them in anger management classes perhaps? At very minimum, speak to them in low tones. How about some couch time with former DI R. Lee Ermey (the Geico commercial)? "Let's just chug on over to mamby pamby land and see if we can't find you some self confidence!" 
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
I thought that's what a Horn and maybe a middle finger were for. My permit isn't worth it to care beyond 30 seconds from the occurrence.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PG County getting some Liberty Doll love over a bill that would ban computers for minors- Started by jc1240
- Replies: 6