Told you so: agreeing to any criminalization of OC is BAD!

[PDinDetroit]

Tried that -- I placed a self-imposed ban on OCDO for 2 weeks, mostly because it was (at that time) a cesspool of hate. What would be your suggestion to stop DanM's constant jabs? Maybe you could speak to him about it?


It's looking like it's time to repeat my previous action. I see little value in posting here:

1. MOC's Forum has a much higher posting count these days.
2. We don't see nearly as much in-fighting BS over there.

HB 5225 could have been said to be "anti-OC". Did DanM support it....hmmmm?

Have you tried to discuss it over the phone and/or in person with him? I believe you quite capable to handle the situation, in many instances as President of MOC, I have seen you do more that I thought could be done. Like I stated before, you may have to "Agree to Disagree" and simply move on but I recommend you do what you can as we will need many persons helping out in the Months and Years to come.

While you are always able to "take your marbles and go home", I would implore you to stay to be a voice of reason, to share experience, and to impart knowledge that you have learned about Firearm Rights. I too take hiatus from sites as needed when I am not able to be here, but I know that I must return when I am able...

 

[PDinDetroit]

Perhaps, however these blatant veiled attacks against MOC regarding SB59 should have died when the bill did. Instead, DanM has posted the same thing on all three bills announced here, one of which is regarding keeping peoples information private to avoid what happened in NY with the names and addresses being published. Now let me ask you, how in the hell would OC be used as a compromise in keeping information private? It was a blatant jab at MOC again. And if nothing is started, there is nothing to be fed. DanM threw the first punches here, sorry if you don't like that he is getting his licks in return.

I see people, who we need to have work together, working against one another. I believe that there is a better way and that participation in such as jabs, personal attacks, etc is truly not needed. Posting back to such simply feeds the fire and causes further divisions.

I have seen enough of your posts to know that you are better than this as well. I implore you to stop and try to work together with those who will, those who will not will eventually find somewhere else to go...

 

[TheQ]

Everyone has a job. Everyone has bosses.

My job is to take the duly considered position of my superiors and see to it that they are faithfully executed. This includes things I am not thrilled about for one reason or another. I know a bit about your day job, I bet yo are left with things you don't like that you have to do.

Other people (no names) have a job too. They refuse to organize and sit idly on a Forum and complain about what those who volunteer their time (not just me -- others in MOC's leadership), family lives, and energies are doing. When they are given a venue to have their input heard, they refuse to show. They'd rather just gripe....over and over again, about the same thing. Never letting it die.

Yes, we all have jobs. They all provide value....to someone. I'm still trying to figure out what value the latter group provides.

With that, I am once again declaring an OCDO hiatus. Those who wish to communicate with me know how to do so and where I will be. I do hope this forum "cleans up" from the cesspool of hate it has become. I hope people learn to agree to disagree. I hope people learn to stop rehashing things that have already been hashed dozens of times -- for the sake of the larger community. Rehashing and provoking more infighting (as DanM clearly did on at least four occasions...within an hour of each other) only serves to divide us.

 

[DanM]

Although, as we all know compromise is acceptable when DanM says it is...

No personal attack. DanM has said he's all about "no compromise" . . .

Phil, I've stated a few times, and even a few posts above prior to these posts of yours, that what I oppose is "criminalization of currently legal gun rights."

I have also clarified several posts ago above that in fact I've never stated a position generally opposing compromise or concessions, only that I oppose "criminalization of currently legal gun rights" and any opposition to compromise or concessions I've stated is in that context.

In the flurry of posts being posted here and elsewhere, perhaps you missed that. I hope you don't miss this one.

 

[Raggs]

Phil
You have no idea on whether people are organizing. Do you really think that an organizing faction against SB59 would ask you to join or CC you into their emails? I doubt that would happen don't you.

Everyone has a job. Everyone has bosses.

My job is to take the duly considered position of my superiors and see to it that they are faithfully executed. This includes things I am not thrilled about for one reason or another. I know a bit about your day job, I bet yo are left with things you don't like that you have to do.

Other people (no names) have a job too. They refuse to organize and sit idly on a Forum and complain about what those who volunteer their time (not just me -- others in MOC's leadership), family lives, and energies are doing. When they are given a venue to have their input heard, they refuse to show. They'd rather just gripe....over and over again, about the same thing. Never letting it die.

Yes, we all have jobs. They all provide value....to someone. I'm still trying to figure out what value the latter group provides.

With that, I am once again declaring an OCDO hiatus. Those who wish to communicate with me know how to do so and where I will be. I do hope this forum "cleans up" from the cesspool of hate it has become. I hope people learn to agree to disagree. I hope people learn to stop rehashing things that have already been hashed dozens of times -- for the sake of the larger community. Rehashing and provoking more infighting (as DanM clearly did on at least four occasions...within an hour of each other) only serves to divide us.

 

[DanM]

Rehashing and provoking more infighting (as DanM clearly did on at least four occasions...within an hour of each other) only serves to divide us.

You don't provide quotes of mine or links, so I'm compelled to assume what you are talking about, if I wish to respond. I assume you mean the posts in each of the threads on specific potential bills in which I asked (paraphrasing) "Will Michigan gun orgs confirm they will not go along with criminalizing currently legal gun rights in order to pass this legislation?"

That is a relevant question for each piece of future legislation, since the Michigan gun orgs agreed to include criminalization of OC in PFZs in the recently failed, thankfully, SB 59. It was unpopular with many people here for the gun orgs to go along with criminalizing currently legal gun rights. Therefore, it is a relevant question to ask in the future.

I understand that some people and some Michigan gun orgs will find it troubling to have their record brought up of going along with the potential criminalizing of currently legal gun rights, but that is a record that they established and is relevant to what they may go along with on any bill in the future. I understand it is uncomfortable for them and they will mis-characterize presentment of their own record and the relevant questions it leads to as "provoking" and "dividing".

But just because you call something "provoking" and "dividing" doesn't make it so. My only suggestion for reflecting on what it is that actually divides gun owners is for the relevant Michigan gun orgs to look into the reflection of a mirror, as they ponder in their mind why they went along with the criminalization of currently legal gun rights in the defeated SB 59.

 

[DanM]

As TheQ siad, some counties were "Shall Issue" IN PRACTICE, not in legal standing.

And as I responded to TheQ on that above:

No matter how liberally an agent of government may apply discretion to grant you a privilege, it is still a privilege being granted at the discretion of the government agent, not a right the government agent cannot interfere with after objective rules on your background are met, as in shall-issue.

TheQ did not voice disagreement with that.

 

[scot623]

I have also clarified several posts ago above that in fact I've never stated a position generally opposing compromise or concessions

"NOTHING GOOD COMES FROM COMPROMISE OR "PLAYING NICE" IN SECURING GUN RIGHTS.

THE ATTITUDE MUST BE ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

We do not compromise OC'ers, we do not compromise CC'ers, we do not compromise home defenders, we do not compromise hunters, we do not compromise sport shooters, we do not compromise ANY GUN OWNERSHIP, ANY GUN POSSESSION, OR ANY GUN CARRY!"


??

 

[Ezerharden]

You're really one to talk. You do work hard for OC, nobody will question that. But...


You're not going away from OCDO, we've heard that a few times before. You'll read, then you wont be able to hold it in, at which point you'll make some snarky remark or little comment. After that, you'll rebut, defend a position, or jump on the bandwagon if someone does something the others don't agree with.

And you were banned yet came back. nuff said

 

[Raggs]

Please cite or produce evidence.

And you were banned yet came back. nuff said

 

[Ezerharden]

To quote you when asked for proof regarding MCRGO backing away from OC: "I got an email stating it was true"

 

[DanM]

I have also clarified several posts ago above that in fact I've never stated a position generally opposing compromise or concessions

"NOTHING GOOD COMES FROM COMPROMISE OR "PLAYING NICE" IN SECURING GUN RIGHTS.

THE ATTITUDE MUST BE ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

We do not compromise OC'ers, we do not compromise CC'ers, we do not compromise home defenders, we do not compromise hunters, we do not compromise sport shooters, we do not compromise ANY GUN OWNERSHIP, ANY GUN POSSESSION, OR ANY GUN CARRY!"


??

Rob, if you are going to quote me, please quote me completely. Below, I've included what you didn't and bolded the part where I shared further contextual definition.

. . . I have also clarified several posts ago above that in fact I've never stated a position generally opposing compromise or concessions, only that I oppose "criminalization of currently legal gun rights" and any opposition to compromise or concessions I've stated is in that context.

I reserve the right to oppose other specific compromises or concessions as they come along and I examine them to see what we get out of giving up those concessions, but my foundational opposition, the context in which I voice "We do not compromise OC'ers, CC'ers, etc.", is against criminalizing any currently legal gun right.

To state it another way:
I am not generally opposed to compromise or concessions to get gun-rights bills passed. I am opposed to concessions that criminalize currently legal gun rights available. Further, I may be opposed to concessions which are given for not enough in return or given for the mere promise of "support in the future" from others.

Also, as a caveat I believe applies to us all:
What I write in specific threads are in the context of the specific discussion I'm following in that thread. My statements in any specific thread are in response to what came before in that thread. Often, therefore, statements are written to address the context of a discussion and do not contain fully definitional exposition. Everyone I see here, including you, does not post fully expositional statements in threads such that I might quote something someone wrote elsewhere, post it somewhere else they are posting, and the two not have some degree of difference. This doesn't mean the person is contradictory, it just means they are writing in two different contexts separated by time, subject, etc.

Getting back to the topic of the thread:
Do you believe that having CC legal in an area, but OC illegal in that area, poses risk of arrest, charges, or prosecution for printing or accidental exposure? Do you believe such has happened in reality, in areas currently where CC is legal but OC is not? Therefore, do you believe making an area CC-legal but OC-illegal is a bad idea, or not?

 

[Shadow Bear]

No sir. You have made the same comment about DanM in multiple posts. It is a jab at him instead of factually discussing the issues.

Well, the target has not made a complaint, so, no harm, no foul.

 

[Shadow Bear]

TheQ did not state "IN PRACTICE". Words mean stuff.

"Shall issue" in quotes has the same literary effect. Punctuation means stuff, too.

 

[DanM]

Well, the target has not made a complaint, so, no harm, no foul.

Just because I don't complain to a moderator doesn't mean a harm or foul didn't occur. You didn't hear from me because I'm a big boy and I can handle responding myself.

 

[DanM]

"Shall issue" in quotes has the same literary effect. Punctuation means stuff, too.

I'm ok with the continuance of this off-topic may-issue/shall-issue discussion here, as long as you are and it doesn't result in anyone posting something that gets my whole thread closed.

Deal? I really want the thread to remain open for folks' input on the topic, which is very discussion-worthy. I hate seeing good, discussion-worthy threads closed due to one or two hecklers whose posts are actually the thing that should be closed, or their posting privileges suspended.

 

[Shadow Bear]

I'm ok with the continuance of this off-topic may-issue/shall-issue discussion here, as long as you are and it doesn't result in anyone posting something that gets my whole thread closed.

Deal? I really want the thread to remain open for folks' input on the topic, which is very discussion-worthy. I hate seeing good, discussion-worthy threads closed due to one or two hecklers whose posts are actually the thing that should be closed, or their posting privileges suspended.

Heckling is in the eye of the beholder. We received more complaints recently about YOU, than anyone else, including 'you know who'. I have not taken any action except a gentle comment about what seemed to be in impending urination contest, directed at multiple people; but you took it waaay to personally for a 'big boy'. Now, everyone, take your meds, and let's get back on topic.

 

[PDinDetroit]

"Shall issue" in quotes has the same literary effect. Punctuation means stuff, too.

Here is what TheQ stated in Post #83, Shall Issue was not in quotes.

CC Ina PFZ was legal for people in shall issue counties prior to 2001. It became illegal with shall issue.

By your own test I just quoted, shall issue was a bad thing, no?

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...f-OC-is-BAD!&p=1883862&viewfull=1#post1883862

 

[Michigander]

And you were banned yet came back. nuff said

I was actually just going through old PM's looking for info, and found PM's with links to the now defunct old forum where someone was proving that stainless and boiledfrogs are the same person. This was more than 3 years ago now I received this PM. Not exactly a case of coming back, more a case of a long held and never banned sock puppet.

And back on the topic at hand, I plan to work as hard as I can to keep any negotiating of rights away from happening in the 3 hours a day and one day per week I currently have off from work. Dan is right, do it slow, give nothing away. We've lost enough in the past year, let's not throw anything more away, and let's please not try in vain to negotiate with our tyrant governor.

 

[autosurgeon]

I was actually just going through old PM's looking for info, and found PM's with links to the now defunct old forum where someone was proving that stainless and boiledfrogs are the same person. This was more than 3 years ago now I received this PM. Not exactly a case of coming back, more a case of a long held and never banned sock puppet.

Yeah I remember that lol...

And Dan no disrespect but you lost this argument about 3 or more pages back what is it they say about more valor... Just let it go we don't all have to agree all the time... But do think about the rights vs privileges more as you may be surprised that what you keep saying is a right is not.