My apologies to the fourm

[J Miller]

I made some comments in this thread: { viewtopic.php?f=1&t=59614 } that I should have either not made or made in an entirely different manor.

To those here I apologize and ask forgiveness.


Joe

[Nath]

Your fine by me Joe

Nath.

[Centennial]

Is it your post of Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:06 am, page 2 ??

Looks good to me too.

[Old Savage]

You have a right to your opinion. A lot were expressed there. I do not agree with some of what you said but others likely will.

[Blaine]

It's a forum for opinions....

[gamekeeper]

It's a forum for opinions....

+ 1 Joe.

[jnyork]

It's a forum for opinions....

This.

[piller]

Opinions are just that. I have been annoyed at times by others opinions, but I get over it. I honestly can't think of a single person on here whom I would not sit down and talk to over coffee. Heck, I have been annoyed by some of the best (in retail, you see the most annoying people at times) and have gotten over it. I don't see anything that you did wrong.

[Paladin]

I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it – Voltaire.

[wm]

Took me a bit to find it but honestly I thought 'eh......typical libertarian view point ' And I don't mean that as an insult just an observation.

I don't disagree with the principle of what you say (asking permission negates the right) but I disagree with the practicality of what you espouse. To maintain a safe and orderly environment in a large, diverse society there has to be some regulation. As citizens it is our responsibility to remain vigilant and not allow the regulators to become tyrants 'in our best interests'. I want to know that people with the responsibility of carrying a weapon are minimally trained, sane and responsible for EVERYONES protection. Could that be point be stretched to require a burdensome amount of training and therefore deny people the right to bear arms........sure could......but as a voter I have to make sure that does not happen.

Therefore I would submit, in a friendly manner, that perhaps your view point is a defeatist one because at its core you believe your government (and it is still yours because of your vote and the fact that you pay for it) is out to get you and people like you. In a sense you've given up on the idea that government can be trusted to balance the rights of the many with the protection of the few.

But I didn't think you owed anyone an apology for a forth right and frank expression of your opinions. Sometimes it takes a thick skin and broad shoulders to be an engaged citizen.......and that's what this sort of discussion is. An exercise of citizenship.

I think we can still be friends even if we disagree.

Wm

[.45colt]

I don't see much wrong with anything You said Joe. it's how YOU feel about things. about the Leo's...I have a big problem with about 20% of them who refuse to use common sense or good manners in their conduct. Simply "I" am the LAW. .

[JohndeFresno]

You have a right to your opinion. A lot were expressed there. I do not agree with some of what you said but others likely will.

+1
You're still my bud.

[Old Savage]

I do disagree with the general indictment of law enforcement.

[GonnePhishin]

Joe, Apologize for WHAT? You said nothing that offended me but were merely speaking what was on your mind. Besides, it was basically the truth.

[AJMD429]

It was honestly expressed, and politically a valid point. Worldwide, "law enforcement" are far likelier to be the cause than "bad guys" when ordinary law-abiding citizens are murdered - via genocide (see R. J. Rummel's many published works on the topic if you doubt it). We have a Constitution and the prohibition of using military as 'police' in our nation to protect us from that, but it is clear those protections are being breached the past few decades. So far it is working - we only had Kent State to compare to Tiananmen Square, and the Branch Davidians to compare to the Warsaw Ghettos, but things keep getting worse instead of better.

So, you are not being so much 'defeatist', as 'realist'.

[Blaine]

It was honestly expressed, and politically a valid point. Worldwide, "law enforcement" are far likelier to be the cause than "bad guys" when ordinary law-abiding citizens are murdered - via genocide (see R. J. Rummel's many published works on the topic if you doubt it). We have a Constitution and the prohibition of using military as 'police' in our nation to protect us from that, but it is clear those protections are being breached the past few decades. So far it is working - we only had Kent State to compare to Tiananmen Square, and the Branch Davidians to compare to the Warsaw Ghettos, but things keep getting worse instead of better.

So, you are not being so much 'defeatist', as 'realist'.

America ain't "worldwide", so stop with this. Luckily, most Americans hold us to a higher standard than "worldwide"..... (In America, Doctors kill WAY more people than LEOs )

[Pete44ru]

.

FWIW - I, for one, agree with part (if not most) of your statement, and act accordingly (And I don't live in an open carry state).

Acquiring a CCW permit is total abdication of your rights, since once you asked permission to do something, it is no longer a right, but has become a privilege.

The way I look at it - My CCW dates from 1776.



.

[Centennial]

America is exceptional, but it is waning.
The democrats & rinos are taking U.S. down to 2nd and 3rd World countries status.

[plowboy 45]

I thought you nailed it fairly close.

[plowboy 45]

America is exceptional, but it is waning.
The democrats & rinos are taking U.S. down to 2nd and 3rd World countries status.

I also agree with this 110%

[Griff]

I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it – Voltaire.

This. Which is often the best segue into an intelligent conversation about gun control, sans emotion.

I did sorta wonder if I needed to come up there and do an intervention.

[Bridger]

Heck, I agreed with most of the post in question...

[plowboy 45]

I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it – Voltaire.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!

[Noah Zark]

I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it – Voltaire.

Miguelito Loveless' henchman said that? I thought he couldn't talk.

Noah

[GonnePhishin]

Miguelito Loveless' henchman said that? I thought he couldn't talk.

[Griff]

I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it – Voltaire.

Miguelito Loveless' henchman said that? I thought he couldn't talk.

Noah

Actually,

The most oft-cited Voltaire quotation is apocryphal. He is incorrectly credited with writing, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." These were not his words, but rather those of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, written under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre in her 1906 biographical book The Friends of Voltaire. Hall intended to summarize in her own words Voltaire's attitude towards Claude Adrien Helvétius and his controversial book De l'esprit, but her first-person expression was mistaken for an actual quotation from Voltaire. Her interpretation does capture the spirit of Voltaire's attitude towards Helvetius; it had been said Hall's summary was inspired by a quotation found in a 1770 Voltaire letter to an Abbot le Riche, in which he was reported to have said, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Nevertheless, scholars believe there must have again been misinterpretation, as the letter does not seem to contain any such quote.

[Old Savage]

Thanks for the enlightenment.