~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 2, 2016 13:08:57 GMT
In the end, it's the same old, same old. Liberals will ALWAYS find a way to distinguish the same actions committed by those who's position they agree with and those who's opinion they disagree with. It's really not worth the effort to discuss issues on this board sometimes.
Thank God,my liberal friends are not like this.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 2, 2016 13:25:42 GMT
In the end, it's the same old, same old. Liberals will ALWAYS find a way to distinguish the same actions committed by those who's position they agree with and those who's opinion they disagree with. It's really not worth the effort to discuss issues on this board sometimes. Thank God,my liberal friends are not like this. And the thread is now complete- A generous hand slap by the sanctimonious republican Lauren on the board. its really rich that you're completely blind to the fact that as much as you claim that "the liberals" do this or that and are the scourge and downfall of society--you do exactly the same thing here. It's always the same rote speech from you. I thank god that none of my many republican friends treat me with the holier than thou, superiority attitude that you have. It's definitely not worth the effort at times to engage you because all you do is insult, call names, and trumpet your believed superiority. But it is funny that you keep coming back to post with the likes of the membership after posting your disdain for them.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 2, 2016 13:31:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 2, 2016 13:35:32 GMT
In the end, it's the same old, same old. Liberals will ALWAYS find a way to distinguish the same actions committed by those who's position they agree with and those who's opinion they disagree with. It's really not worth the effort to discuss issues on this board sometimes. Thank God,my liberal friends are not like this. I think this is inaccurate. Having a differing opinion is not the same thing as having bias. Reasonable people can disagree. I'd be willing to bet you give your liberal friends a lot more latitude to simply disagree on these topics than you do the liberal members of this board.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 2, 2016 13:36:23 GMT
It isn't as safe as possible if you cannot defend yourself. That puts you in an unsafe situation if you did need to defend yourself and could not. What about those of us who feel less safe at the thought of someone else in the store carrying a gun? I understand that anything can happen at any time, but I personally think that an average joe carrying a gun in a store has a better chance of causing more problems in a shooter situation than actually helping or preventing deaths. Then you should be thrilled at this act. You get what you want (no patrons bringing weapons in) and I get what I want (someone will be ready to protect me if need be). It's a win-win, eh?
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 2, 2016 13:41:42 GMT
In the end, it's the same old, same old. Liberals will ALWAYS find a way to distinguish the same actions committed by those who's position they agree with and those who's opinion they disagree with. It's really not worth the effort to discuss issues on this board sometimes. Thank God,my liberal friends are not like this. I think this is inaccurate. Having a differing opinion is not the same thing as having bias. Reasonable people can disagree. I'd be willing to bet you give your liberal friends a lot more latitude to simply disagree on these topics than you do the liberal members of this board. You may well be right. However, my liberal friends would not make comments about me being paranoid etc if I said I want to bring a gun with me. That's the difference also, people are not just "discussing". They are personally denigrating someone with a different opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 7:33:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 13:48:20 GMT
I don't really know how much I want to share. I don't think anyone will change their minds even if I do. Unless you've been in my position you probably wouldn't understand it, and that's OK. Non-military people will never have the understanding of what it's like. Hearing a story is a lot different than being there. You never think that someone is going to actually come at you and try to kill you until it happens. I get that because I was the same way. These days I think it is very foolish to think that nothing bad will ever happen. Clearly we are living in a volatile time. I don't see that going away any time soon, unfortunately. I'm a veteran, my husband is a vet and neither of us feel the need to run around armed. The only weapons we have in our house are some BB guns. I don't think being military vs. non-military has anything to do with it. My best friend's dh is currently active duty Army, he's served several tours in Iraq they do have a couple of hunting rifles but neither carry concealed or feel unsafe when leaving the house. I think you have a very distorted view of the world, always seeing dangers and fears. I do not live in fear of others or the government. Yes there are bad people out there who would do me harm but I'm not going to let that rule the way I look at the world. There are also good people who will help me, I'd rather focus on that.
|
|
johnnysmom
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,682
Jun 25, 2014 21:16:33 GMT
|
Post by johnnysmom on Jul 2, 2016 14:00:41 GMT
What about those of us who feel less safe at the thought of someone else in the store carrying a gun? I understand that anything can happen at any time, but I personally think that an average joe carrying a gun in a store has a better chance of causing more problems in a shooter situation than actually helping or preventing deaths. Then you should be thrilled at this act. You get what you want (no patrons bringing weapons in) and I get what I want (someone will be ready to protect me if need be). It's a win-win, eh?Except for the business owner, seems lose-lose for them. And of course any increased cost the business owner has will be passed to the consumer.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 7:33:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 14:15:22 GMT
In the end, it's the same old, same old. Liberals will ALWAYS find a way to distinguish the same actions committed by those who's position they agree with and those who's opinion they disagree with. It's really not worth the effort to discuss issues on this board sometimes. Thank God,my liberal friends are not like this. Lauren, do you think this law will survive legal challenges?
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 2, 2016 14:35:07 GMT
I counted two, not including you. So, are you saying you see 3 people on this thread that support this law if you DO include me? If YOU include yourself, that would make three. I don't really know what you think. I think it is very clear that Bunny and Lauren support it. Why does it matter? I could be wrong, but it feels as if you are trying to start something with me.
|
|
|
Post by disneypal on Jul 2, 2016 16:34:31 GMT
It isn't as safe as possible if you cannot defend yourself. That puts you in an unsafe situation if you did need to defend yourself and could not. Yes, a business can make their establishment as safe as possible without giving YOU a means to defend yourself with a firearm. Now, lets be quite honest with each other....is it possible that some mad man can come into a business an shoot the place up? Yes, it is possible. Is it likely that will happen? NO!! VERY, VERY, HIGHLY unlikely. In my opinion - restating - MY opinion, if someone feels a need to carry a firearm with them where ever they go, they are paranoid. I don't disagree with anyone's right to carry a gun, but I don't disagree with a place of business saying "no guns allowed" either. If a business doesn't allow guns and you want to carry one, then you just can't go into that place.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 2, 2016 16:56:35 GMT
It isn't as safe as possible if you cannot defend yourself. That puts you in an unsafe situation if you did need to defend yourself and could not. Yes, a business can make their establishment as safe as possible without giving YOU a means to defend yourself with a firearm. Now, lets be quite honest with each other....is is possible that some mad man can come into a business an shoot the place up? Yes, it is possible. Is it likely that will happen? NO!! VERY, VERY, HIGHLY unlikely. In my opinion - restating - MY opinion, if someone feels a need to carry a firearm with them where ever they go, they are paranoid. I don't disagree with anyone's right to carry a gun, but I don't disagree with a place of business saying "no guns allowed" either. If a business doesn't allow guns and you want to carry one, then you just can't go into that place. What makes you think lack of defense is safer?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 7:33:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 17:25:19 GMT
So, are you saying you see 3 people on this thread that support this law if you DO include me? If YOU include yourself, that would make three. I don't really know what you think. I think it is very clear that Bunny and Lauren support it. Why does it matter? I could be wrong, but it feels as if you are trying to start something with me. I'm not trying to start anything, I asked a question to clarify what you meant so I didn't assume. When you included me (one way or the other) in your count of supporters in this thread, you made it sound like you think I support this law. And I didn't want to respond until I knew where you're coming from. We ended on a good note the last time we interacted and I'd like to keep it that way.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 2, 2016 18:10:00 GMT
In the end, it's the same old, same old. Liberals will ALWAYS find a way to distinguish the same actions committed by those who's position they agree with and those who's opinion they disagree with. It's really not worth the effort to discuss issues on this board sometimes. Thank God,my liberal friends are not like this. Lauren, do you think this law will survive legal challenges? With today's courts, I have no idea whatsoever
|
|
MsKnit
Pearl Clutcher
RefuPea #1406
Posts: 2,648
Jun 26, 2014 19:06:42 GMT
|
Post by MsKnit on Jul 2, 2016 18:50:43 GMT
I think this is inaccurate. Having a differing opinion is not the same thing as having bias. Reasonable people can disagree. I'd be willing to bet you give your liberal friends a lot more latitude to simply disagree on these topics than you do the liberal members of this board. You may well be right. However, my liberal friends would not make comments about me being paranoid etc if I said I want to bring a gun with me. That's the difference also, people are not just "discussing". They are personally denigrating someone with a different opinion. I support gun rights. Yet, I still think this law is asinine. When I mentioned paranoia being a mental disorder, it was directed at Rainbow's actions. It isn't just this one thread. My opinion is a result of so many years of reading her insanity. She is doing the pro-gun people no favors. I don't want her speaking for me, because she comes off as a lunatic. Before people were calling for gun bans, I had zero reaction to seeing someone out with a gun. Since then, I do take pause and hope it isn't some I-will-exercise-my-rights-and-make-a-point idiot. I don't want those speaking for me either. They are morons. However, I won't automatically consider someone paranoid simply because they wish to carry a gun. There are very valid reasons. And, I believe sensible gun owners far outweigh the in-your-face ones. As for this law, what do the supporters expect. Do they want to live with snipers on the roof of establishments? Perhaps armed guards wielding machine guns patrolling the store floor? Because if it stands, that is where we are headed with this type of law. That is what I am taking from Rainbow's 'They damn well better protect me' stance. Quite frankly, Rainbow and her ilk are the Westboro Baptist Church of gun owners. You wish to look at that as denigrating someone, go ahead. I'm beyond done with the idiot minority being the example of the gun owning American public. Also, I didn't care if a business chose to not service the LGBT community or pharmacists chose not to dispense certain meds. However, I felt they should be required to state their stance on their door and advertisements. They can do as the see fit. But, I want to be completely informed so as to buy my cupcakes at a LGBT friendly establishment.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 2, 2016 19:05:35 GMT
I think this is inaccurate. Having a differing opinion is not the same thing as having bias. Reasonable people can disagree. I'd be willing to bet you give your liberal friends a lot more latitude to simply disagree on these topics than you do the liberal members of this board. You may well be right. However, my liberal friends would not make comments about me being paranoid etc if I said I want to bring a gun with me. That's the difference also, people are not just "discussing". They are personally denigrating someone with a different opinion. Which you do in every post.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 2, 2016 19:13:51 GMT
If YOU include yourself, that would make three. I don't really know what you think. I think it is very clear that Bunny and Lauren support it. Why does it matter? I could be wrong, but it feels as if you are trying to start something with me. I'm not trying to start anything, I asked a question to clarify what you meant so I didn't assume. When you included me (one way or the other) in your count of supporters in this thread, you made it sound like you think I support this law. And I didn't want to respond until I knew where you're coming from. We ended on a good note the last time we interacted and I'd like to keep it that way. Me too. It felt like a "gotcha" line of questioning to me. I am glad that wasn't the case! If I felt that someone might be misinterpreting my stance on an issue, and I wasn't looking to argue, I would simply say "I'm not sure what you are assuming, but I do/do not (your choice) support this law. I just wanted to be clear." As I mentioned, two people have been clear on their stance, you have not. I'm not assuming anything, and felt that you were looking for something from me to dispute, rather than simply clarifying your view. I am trying and will continue to try to choose my words carefully so as to not argue with you. I would prefer that.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 2, 2016 19:14:45 GMT
Yes, a business can make their establishment as safe as possible without giving YOU a means to defend yourself with a firearm. Now, lets be quite honest with each other....is is possible that some mad man can come into a business an shoot the place up? Yes, it is possible. Is it likely that will happen? NO!! VERY, VERY, HIGHLY unlikely. In my opinion - restating - MY opinion, if someone feels a need to carry a firearm with them where ever they go, they are paranoid. I don't disagree with anyone's right to carry a gun, but I don't disagree with a place of business saying "no guns allowed" either. If a business doesn't allow guns and you want to carry one, then you just can't go into that place. What makes you think lack of defense is safer?Because she's saying that she, a lot of others don't go to places fearful of what might happen. They go about their daily activities leaving their home not worried that they are going to go to the grocery store or local cafe and get shot up by a bad guy. And their thinking does not include that some other civilian who is carrying is going to save the day. To those people, being comfortable they are not fearful and thinking that they have to strap on a gun to feel safe. It's just a matter of perspective. Just as much as you (may) see it as being defenseless, many, many others feel safe without having to worry about it. And they are not wrong either. To those people, who are comfortable how they feel about it, it seems paranoid (foreign) or over the top excessive to them. To you it might not. It's just a matter of perspective.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 2, 2016 19:25:23 GMT
Not having a gun does not equal defenseless. Those with military experience have had self-defense training that does not include using firearms - it is called hand-to-hand combat.
For me, it is a false argument to say the only way to defend oneself is with a gun.
For me, it is also a false argument to say more guns in more hands in more settings makes us all safer.
For me, more guns in the hands of more people with little training and or experience makes me feel less safe.
Your mileage may vary, this is my reality.
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Jul 2, 2016 19:29:58 GMT
We had a four hour training at work that a security company came in and instructed. We saw the things available online for anyone to make to cause harm, we were trained how a small group of people can disarm a gunman and where to stand, we were chased down by two "active shooters" in our place of business. We learned how to stack furniture and block doors as well as where to stand in rooms for the best results. I think using the fire extinguisher is better than a stapler. Personally, I think this type of training will be more effective than my cubicle neighbor carrying a gun. The fewer guns in a place of business, the better. We can have guns in our vehicles though. I know of three people hunting who knew all of the rules and still managed to get shot. One of my students who had extensive gun training shot and killed his best friend by accident. Sometimes the most educated person can make a mistake. I was raised with guns and shot my first at gun at five. I believe in the right to bear arms, but I also agree with the other 80-90% of the population that wants gun limits, not gun abolishment.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 2, 2016 19:35:48 GMT
We had a four hour training at work that a security company came in and instructed. We saw the things available online for anyone to make to cause harm, we were trained how a small group of people can disarm a gunman and where to stand, we were chased down by two "active shooters" in our place of business. We learned how to stack furniture and block doors as well as where to stand in rooms for the best results. I think using the fire extinguisher is better than a stapler. Personally, I think this type of training will be more effective than my cubicle neighbor carrying a gun. The fewer guns in a place of business, the better. We can have guns in our vehicles though. I know of three people hunting who knew all of the rules and still managed to get shot. One of my students who had extensive gun training shot and killed his best friend by accident. Sometimes the most educated person can make a mistake. I was raised with guns and shot my first at gun at five. I believe in the right to bear arms, but I also agree with the other 80-90% of the population that wants gun limits, not gun abolishment.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 7:33:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 21:22:58 GMT
I'm not trying to start anything, I asked a question to clarify what you meant so I didn't assume. When you included me (one way or the other) in your count of supporters in this thread, you made it sound like you think I support this law. And I didn't want to respond until I knew where you're coming from. We ended on a good note the last time we interacted and I'd like to keep it that way. Me too. It felt like a "gotcha" line of questioning to me. I am glad that wasn't the case! If I felt that someone might be misinterpreting my stance on an issue, and I wasn't looking to argue, I would simply say "I'm not sure what you are assuming, but I do/do not (your choice) support this law. I just wanted to be clear." I understand. That's how I felt when you were beating around the bush as to whether or not you thought I supported the law. I said on my first post on page 2 "I agree with their right to not have guns in their establishment." I thought that was pretty clear. I was trying to figure out where the interpretation problem was and was also trying to choose my words carefully, since even though I said "I agree with their right to not have guns in their establishment." it still wasn't clear to you that I don't support this law. And despite choosing my words very carefully and being very careful to be polite and respectful in my response to flute4peace, I was jumped on by papercrafteradvocate for shutting down conversation and being aggressive, which you agreed with. And despite politely, but firmly clarifying that I wasn't doing that, she wouldn't hear it and insisted I was wrong, which you also agreed with. This is why I thought their was an interpretation problem and wanted to make sure I didn't jump to conclusions and add more fuel to the fire. All of this resulted in me tiptoeing around and being even more careful to make sure I knew what you meant before I responded to you. Which then caused you to STILL find reason to think I'm arguing. It's as if no matter what steps I take and how careful I am to be polite and choose my words carefully, you and she will not see what is actually being said and how politely and respectfully it's being said. I'm not tiptoeing around anymore, but I will be continue to be respectful and polite. In return, I hope that you at least, will understand that stating what I think, and why, on a thread is not anymore arguing than you are when you do it. I would hope that Papercrafteradvocate can come to understand that too.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 2, 2016 21:30:19 GMT
In essence it is saying that if you don't want me to protect myself in your business, then you should protect me. To demand that patrons be defenseless is not acceptable, that's why this act is going to be in place. I think this act is more than fair. I'm still on the first page, but doesn't this mean that if someone comes in to... a school, a mall, a bar... that has a posted "No Guns" sign/rule and commits an act of terror by firearm, then that school, mall, bar.... bears the responsibility for those who may be harmed? As in... they will be the ones to foot the medical bills, funeral bills, and whatever settlements the courts may award to the surviving families? Oh yeah. That sounds totally fair.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 2, 2016 21:39:20 GMT
Me too. It felt like a "gotcha" line of questioning to me. I am glad that wasn't the case! If I felt that someone might be misinterpreting my stance on an issue, and I wasn't looking to argue, I would simply say "I'm not sure what you are assuming, but I do/do not (your choice) support this law. I just wanted to be clear." I understand. That's how I felt when you were beating around the bush as to whether or not you thought I supported the law. I said on my first post on page 2 "I agree with their right to not have guns in their establishment." I thought that was pretty clear. I was trying to figure out where the interpretation problem was and was also trying to choose my words carefully, since even though I said "I agree with their right to not have guns in their establishment." it still wasn't clear to you that I don't support this law. And despite choosing my words very carefully and being very careful to be polite and respectful in my response to flute4peace, I was jumped on by papercrafteradvocate for shutting down conversation and being aggressive, which you agreed with. And despite politely, but firmly clarifying that I wasn't doing that, she wouldn't hear it and insisted I was wrong, which you also agreed with. This is why I thought their was an interpretation problem and wanted to make sure I didn't jump to conclusions and add more fuel to the fire. All of this resulted in me tiptoeing around and be even more careful to make sure I knew what you meant before I responded to you. Which then caused you to STILL find reason to think I'm arguing. It's as if no matter what steps I take and how careful I am to be polite and choose my words carefully, you and she will not see what is actually being said and how politely and respectfully it's being said. I'm not tiptoeing around anymore, but I will be continue to be respectful and polite. In return, I hope that you at least, will understand that stating what I think, and why, on a thread is not anymore arguing than you are when you do it. I would hope that Papercrafteradvocate can come to understand that too. Your defense of Rainbow sometimes comes across as your being in agreement with her line of thought, which muddied the waters as to what you thought, in my mind. I will guess that I am not alone in that - not that you need to change anything, just an FYI. I also didn't want to name names - Rainbow and Lauren - which is why I was beating around the bush; but had to to prove my comments weren't aimed at you. Please communicate however feels right for you - I will continue to tiptoe for a while, because that feels best to me.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 2, 2016 21:41:55 GMT
What makes you think lack of defense is safer? Because she's saying that she, a lot of others don't go to places fearful of what might happen. They go about their daily activities leaving their home not worried that they are going to go to the grocery store or local cafe and get shot up by a bad guy. And their thinking does not include that some other civilian who is carrying is going to save the day. To those people, being comfortable they are not fearful and thinking that they have to strap on a gun to feel safe. It's just a matter of perspective. Just as much as you (may) see it as being defenseless, many, many others feel safe without having to worry about it. And they are not wrong either. To those people, who are comfortable how they feel about it, it seems paranoid (foreign) or over the top excessive to them. To you it might not. It's just a matter of perspective. I really don't see that you answered the question. You keep on about how people feel and if they are comfortable. That doesn't equal safety. Just because you feel safe doesn't mean you are. I don't see how being defenseless is safer. To me preparedness is better, because there is no problem if you don't need to use it.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 2, 2016 21:43:24 GMT
Those pictures are total awesomeness.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 7:33:34 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 21:46:29 GMT
Because she's saying that she, a lot of others don't go to places fearful of what might happen. They go about their daily activities leaving their home not worried that they are going to go to the grocery store or local cafe and get shot up by a bad guy. And their thinking does not include that some other civilian who is carrying is going to save the day. To those people, being comfortable they are not fearful and thinking that they have to strap on a gun to feel safe. It's just a matter of perspective. Just as much as you (may) see it as being defenseless, many, many others feel safe without having to worry about it. And they are not wrong either. To those people, who are comfortable how they feel about it, it seems paranoid (foreign) or over the top excessive to them. To you it might not. It's just a matter of perspective. I really don't see that you answered the question. You keep on about how people feel and if they are comfortable. That doesn't equal safety. Just because you feel safe doesn't mean you are. I don't see how being defenseless is safer. To me preparedness is better, because there is no problem if you don't need to use it.Rainbow, perhaps you could consider that your definition of safety could be very different than others. Feeling safe is such a subjective thing. You can acknowledge that, can't you? It seems like you're expecting others to agree with your interpretation/idea of "safe."
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 2, 2016 21:47:14 GMT
However, not all office staplings are self inflicted. A whopping 3 percent of personal staplings involve other parties. As of today, February 11, 2003, there have been two cases of non-accidental stapling reported in the UK and with more people reporting job-dissatisfaction that number is expected to double over the next two decades. (Journal of Occupational Health Vol.32 Is.2 1996)<\cite> Dear peas in the UK... This is your warning. Within 20 years, there may be four (4) cases of non-accidental personal staplings. IN A SINGLE YEAR! Please. Do what you can to protect yourselves. This has been a UK Pea public service announcement.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 7:33:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2016 21:57:31 GMT
I understand. That's how I felt when you were beating around the bush as to whether or not you thought I supported the law. I said on my first post on page 2 "I agree with their right to not have guns in their establishment." I thought that was pretty clear. I was trying to figure out where the interpretation problem was and was also trying to choose my words carefully, since even though I said "I agree with their right to not have guns in their establishment." it still wasn't clear to you that I don't support this law. And despite choosing my words very carefully and being very careful to be polite and respectful in my response to flute4peace, I was jumped on by papercrafteradvocate for shutting down conversation and being aggressive, which you agreed with. And despite politely, but firmly clarifying that I wasn't doing that, she wouldn't hear it and insisted I was wrong, which you also agreed with. This is why I thought their was an interpretation problem and wanted to make sure I didn't jump to conclusions and add more fuel to the fire. All of this resulted in me tiptoeing around and be even more careful to make sure I knew what you meant before I responded to you. Which then caused you to STILL find reason to think I'm arguing. It's as if no matter what steps I take and how careful I am to be polite and choose my words carefully, you and she will not see what is actually being said and how politely and respectfully it's being said. I'm not tiptoeing around anymore, but I will be continue to be respectful and polite. In return, I hope that you at least, will understand that stating what I think, and why, on a thread is not anymore arguing than you are when you do it. I would hope that Papercrafteradvocate can come to understand that too. Your defense of Rainbow sometimes comes across as your being in agreement with her line of thought, which muddied the waters as to what you thought, in my mind. I will guess that I am not alone in that - not that you need to change anything, just an FYI. I also didn't want to name names - Rainbow and Lauren - which is why I was beating around the bush; but had to to prove my comments weren't aimed at you. Please communicate however feels right for you - I will continue to tiptoe for a while, because that feels best to me. I understand and agree. And just for the record, I wasn't defending Rainbow here. It was a comment on seeing anyone who carries as living in fear. Moving on.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 2, 2016 22:02:55 GMT
I think it's very short-sighted. The state will end up spending a mint in legal costs to defend the inevitable challenge. Just because some gun rights folks think something is "fair" doesn't make it constitutional. Can you imagine the insurance??? There would no longer be small independent business's and costs would go up everywhere else. If this were law, you bet your butt insurance companies would raise rates sky high for that kind of liability. This could literally kill small businesses in Tennessee. That is definitely not in the spirit of working hard to get ahead, and it's just an effort to get people to not have "Gun Free Zones." It reminds me too much of the TX abortion laws that required clinics to have 8 foot wide hallways that are wide enough for two gurneys to pass side by side. Bad law is bad law.
|
|