F
Finalygotabeltfed
It depends on the situation. Perjury that is used to convict an innocent person does indeed have an individual victim.
Yes, but that never happens.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
It depends on the situation. Perjury that is used to convict an innocent person does indeed have an individual victim.
Yes, but that never happens.
you really don't get it.
You are STILL feeding on press generated outrage of a man who owns a gun. Do you understand what this does for your right to bear arms?
You are fundamentally fueling journalism which generally villainizes gun ownership by refusing to acknowledge that this story could be based on non-factual situations.
By doing so, you are perpetuating such journalism. And strengthening the opinion of the public who hates firearm ownership by agreeing with them.
Why does this matter?
Because you "aren't one of them" yet you are in line with their train of thought. You agree that this man shouldn't own a firearm. That agree-ance in itself is a whole other debate I won't tackle. Either way, you are supporting the fact that it isn't a right to own firearms, and that it's a privilege and that this man has lost it.
And you're doing so without knowing the whole story. And by doing so you are championing the laws which took this man's rights away.
If you really do like gun ownership, you need to sit down, and think about what you type and how you react to stories like these. Because you just may have a little bit of anti-2A sentiment when you parade about a story like this as you are doing right now.
Think about it. Let's say your neighbor is a Nancy Pelosi. You meet her at the end of your driveway and you start talking about the "crazy" guy waving his gun all over the place. Would you tell her "yeah, thank god he lost his rights." Or would you say "we don't know the whole story... and besides the point, no crime was committed from what we read, why should a man lose his rights?"
What is the answer? Who's side are you on, fivepak?
This isn't the first time you've come accross in your posts to me as a dick. If you have an issue with me then man up and say so.
What do you expect from a guy with a anti-gun legislation signing president as his avatar?
you really don't get it.
You are STILL feeding on press generated outrage of a man who owns a gun. Do you understand what this does for your right to bear arms?
You are fundamentally fueling journalism which generally villainizes gun ownership by refusing to acknowledge that this story could be based on non-factual situations.
By doing so, you are perpetuating such journalism. And strengthening the opinion of the public who hates firearm ownership by agreeing with them.
Why does this matter?
Because you "aren't one of them" yet you are in line with their train of thought. You agree that this man shouldn't own a firearm. That agree-ance in itself is a whole other debate I won't tackle. Either way, you are supporting the fact that it isn't a right to own firearms, and that it's a privilege and that this man has lost it.
And you're doing so without knowing the whole story. And by doing so you are championing the laws which took this man's rights away.
If you really do like gun ownership, you need to sit down, and think about what you type and how you react to stories like these. Because you just may have a little bit of anti-2A sentiment when you parade about a story like this as you are doing right now.
Think about it. Let's say your neighbor is a Nancy Pelosi. You meet her at the end of your driveway and you start talking about the "crazy" guy waving his gun all over the place. Would you tell her "yeah, thank god he lost his rights." Or would you say "we don't know the whole story... and besides the point, no crime was committed from what we read, why should a man lose his rights?"
What is the answer? Who's side are you on, fivepak?
Everything I posted is based on if the media wasn't full of shit as it usually is. I do understand all of it may be crap and the media has demonized this guy.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to flintoid again.
No, you're talking about "guns and Massachusetts". The innocent til proven guilty doesn't apply here.The point is they revoked his LTC before a full investigation could take place is guilty til proven innocent. I believe it's supposed be the opposite of that.
You are, you're a subject in Massachusetts....That's awesome. I hope I'm always a victim.
A negative rep point for having a different opinion?
I'd like to know how many of us are infallible. I'm pretty sure the Pope is not a member here, so probably at some point in each of our lives, we've done some incredibly boneheaded and have regretted it, perhaps instantly or perhaps after time and experience sets in.
The ethics question here is, did/will Angel (was that his name?) learn from his egregious mistake? Should he be permanently barred from exercising his Constitutionally guaranteed, God given rights because he lost his cool, did something incredibly stupid and out of line and got caught at it?
How many of you reading this post just ONCE did something just as dumb? Do YOU deserve to lose your ltc? Don't bother to sing out unless you want to. I know you're out there. Not me of course. I'm infallible.
I look forward to it. Discussing anything using an iPad is a pain in the ass and I get a little lazy with it. So some of my meaning get lost. Cheers.We are on the same page, then. It's all about how you initially and outwardly react to it. We'll sit down and talk about it at the shoot this weekend. It will be a very good conversation.
I look forward to it. Discussing anything using an iPad is a pain in the ass and I get a little lazy with it. So some of my meaning get lost. Cheers.